### DEPLW-1246



# State of Maine

Department of

Environmental Protection

2012 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 2 

# Table of Contents

Chapter 1 Preface .................................

................................................... ................................................... .. 5 Data Sources and Acknowledgements .................

................................................... ........................ 6 Chapter 2 Executive Summary and Response to Comment s ................................................. ..................... 8 Executive Summary .................................

................................................... ..................................... 8 Response to Comments...............................

................................................... ............................... 12 Chapter 3 Background ..............................

................................................... ............................................... 40 State Atlas and Water Quality Standards ...........

................................................... ........................ 40 Highlights for Point Source Pollution Control Progr ams ............................................... ................. 43 Extent of Nonpoint Sources of Pollutants and Progra m Recommendations ................................. 49 The Environmental Impact and Economic & Social Cost s/Benefits of Effective Water Quality Programs ..........................................

................................................... ........................................... 56 Chapter 4 Surface Water Monitoring & Assessments ..

................................................... ........................... 58 Assessment Methodology ............................

................................................... ............................... 58

Assessment Criteria ...............................

................................................... ..................................... 63 Integrated Report Lists of Categories 1 Through 5 .

................................................... .................... 68

Rivers / Streams ..................................

................................................... ........................................ 75

Lakes / Ponds .....................................

................................................... ........................................ 85

Estuaries / Coastal Waters ........................

................................................... ................................. 92 Chapter 5 Wetlands ................................

................................................... ............................................... 105 Background ........................................

................................................... ....................................... 105 Development of Wetland Water Quality Standards ....

................................................... .............. 106 Integrity of Wetland Resources ....................

................................................... ............................. 108

Extent of Wetland Resources .......................

................................................... ............................ 110 Chapter 6 Groundwater Monitoring & Assessments ....

................................................... .......................... 113

Overview ..........................................

................................................... ......................................... 113 Assessment of Groundwater Quality .................

................................................... ....................... 114 Water Resources Planning Committee ................

................................................... ..................... 115 Chapter 7 Public Health – Related Assessments .....

................................................... ............................. 134 Maine Healthy Beaches Program .....................

................................................... ........................ 134 Shellfish Program Monitoring & Assessments ........

................................................... .................. 138 Ocean Fish and Shellfish Consumption Advisories ...

................................................... ............... 139 Freshwater Fish Consumption Monitoring, Assessments and Advisories ................................... 141

Groundwater and Public Health Concerns.............

................................................... ................... 144 Chapter 8 Summary of Impaired Waters ..............

................................................... ................................. 148

Overview ..........................................

................................................... ......................................... 148 New Listings ......................................

................................................... ........................................ 148 New Delistings ....................................

................................................... ...................................... 159 Status of Delisted Category 5 Waters ..............

................................................... ......................... 178 TMDL Development Status ...........................

................................................... ............................ 204 Chapter 9 Accessing and Managing Data Used in Makin g Decisions on Status of Waters ................... .. 217 Maine DEP Quality Management System................

................................................... ................. 217 Environmental and Geographic Analysis Database (EGA D) ................................................ ....... 217 Listings on Individual Waters .....................

................................................... ............................... 219

Cover photo: wetland on Robert’s Pond, Lyman (DEP b iomonitoring unit, 2010)2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 3 

# Index of Figures

Figure 6-1 Active and Inactive Landfills in Maine..

................................................... ................................. 122 Figure 6-2 Distribution of Sole Source Public Wate r Supply Wells for the Ambient Water Quality

Monitoring Network by Aquifer Type ................

................................................... ....................... 129 Figure 6-3 Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Network Well Location Map ................................ .............. 130



# Index of Tables

Table 2-1 Summary of Changes to Surface Water Asses sment Categories – 2010 to 2012 .................. ... 9 Table 3-1 The 2012 Integrated Report State of Maine Atlas ............................................ .......................... 40 Table 3-2 CSO Program Summary Statistics ..........

................................................... ................................ 45 Table 3-3 Yearly Summary of SCGP Activities .......

................................................... ................................. 46 Table 3-4 Permitting/licensing by the Division of W ater Quality Management ........................... ................ 47 Table 3-5 Priority marine waters with impaired or t hreatened water quality due to nonpoint source pollution. ........................................

................................................... .............................................. 51

Table 3-6 Atlantic Salmon Watershed Rivers ........

................................................... .................................. 51 Table 3-7 Maine’s regulated MS4’s .................

................................................... ........................................ 52 Table 3-8 Section 319(h) Clean Water Act Grant Awar ds to Maine ....................................... .................... 56 Table 4-1 Maine Designated Uses and Criteria for Ri vers and Streams .................................. .................. 63 Table 4-2 Maine Designated Uses and Criteria for La kes and Ponds ..................................... ................... 64 Table 4-3 Maine Designated Uses and Criteria for Es tuarine and Marine Waters ......................... ............ 64 Table 4-4 Lake Trophic State Parameters and Guideli nes ............................................... .......................... 66 Table 4-5 Summary of State Waters Attaining and Not Attaining Standards .............................. ............... 68 Table 4-6 Individual Designated Use Support Summary for Maine Rivers and Streams ..................... ...... 69 Table 4-7 Individual Designated Use Support Summary for Maine Lakes .................................. ............... 69 Table 4-8 Individual Designated Use Support Summary for Maine Wetlands ............................... ............. 70 Table 4-9 Individual Designated Use Support Summary for Maine Estuarine and Marine Waters ............ 70 Table 4-10 Total Sizes of Category 4 and 5 Impaired Maine Rivers and Streams by Listing Cause/Stressor Type ...............................

................................................... ................................... 71 Table 4-11 Total Sizes of Category 4 and 5 Impaired Maine Lakes by Listing Cause/Stressor Type (Total acreage) ..........................................

................................................... ............................................ 71 Table 4-12 Total Sizes of Category 4 and 5 Impaired Maine Lakes by Listing Cause/Stressor Type (by Category) .........................................

................................................... ........................................... 71 Table 4-13 Total Sizes of Category 4 and 5 Impaired Maine Wetlands by Listing Cause/Stressor Type .. 7 2 Table 4-14 Total Sizes of Category 4 and 5 Impaired Maine Estuarine and Marine Waters by Listing Cause/Stressor Type ...............................

................................................... ................................... 72 Table 4-15 Total Sizes of Category 4 and 5 Impaired Maine Rivers and Streams by Source Category.... 72 Table 4-16 Total Sizes of Category 4 and 5 Impaired Maine Lakes by Source Category ................... ....... 73 Table 4-17 Total Sizes of Category 4 and 5 Impaired Maine Lakes by Source Category (by Listing Category) .........................................

................................................... ........................................... 73 Table 4-18 Total Sizes of Category 4 and 5 Impaired Maine Wetlands by Source Category ................ .... 74 Table 4-19 Total Sizes of Category 4 and 5 Impaired Maine Estuarine and Marine Waters by Source Category ..........................................

................................................... ............................................ 74 Table 4-20 Maine Water Quality Criteria for Classif ication of Fresh Surface Waters (38 MRSA §465) .... . 75

Table 4-21 Percent Distribution of River/Stream Wat er Classes ........................................ ........................ 76 Table 4-22 Summary of Changes to Surface Water Asse ssment Categories – 2010 to 2012* ................. 77 Table 4-23 "All" and "Significant" Lake Category In formation ......................................... ........................... 86 Table 4-24 Summary of Listing Categories and Subcat egories used in the 2012 Assessment of Maine

lakes. ............................................

................................................... ............................................... 872012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 4 Table 4-25 Individual Use Support Summary for Lake (acres) in Category 5a (TMDL Needed) ............. . 88 Table 4-26 Trophic Status of Maine Lakes ..........

................................................... .................................... 89 Table 4-27 Lake Rehabilitation Technique Summary (S ection 319 Projects) .............................. .............. 89

Table 4-28 Maine’s Estuarine and Marine Waters Clas sification Standards .............................. ................ 92 Table 4-29 Area and Percentage of Estuarine and Mar ine Waters in Each Classification ................. ....... 93 Table 5-3 Wetland Mitigation Totals in the Organize d Townships ....................................... ..................... 111 Table 5-2 Permitted Wetland Impact Totals in the Or ganized Townships ................................. ............... 112 Table 6-1 Remediation Priority List Sites – Number of Sites as of December 2011 ...................... .......... 117 Table 6-2 Current (December 2011) Remediation Prio rity List Sites – Contamination Summary ........... 118 Table 6-3 Oil and Hazardous Material Reports - Jan uary 2009 through December 2010 ................... ... 119 Table 6-4 Hexazinone Monitoring - 1994 through 200 6 ................................................. ......................... 121 Table 6-5 Hazardous Waste Sites, Number and Status

.................................................. ........................ 124 Table 6-6 Nitrate-N Frequency Distributions ......

................................................... ................................... 125 Table 6-7 Wells testing positive for E. coli or to tal coliform ...................................... ............................... 126 Table 6-8 Wells testing positive for E. coli or tot al coliform 1/08-12/10 ............................ ........................ 126 Table 6-9 Underground Injection Control Program In formation ......................................... ...................... 126 Table 6-10 Ambient Aquifer Monitoring Data* ......

................................................... ................................ 131 Table 7-1 Beaches Participating in Program ........

................................................... ................................. 135 Table 7-2 2009 Beach Advisory and Closure Informati on ................................................ ........................ 137 Table 7-3 2010 Beach Advisory and Closure Informati on ................................................ ........................ 138 Table 8-1 New Rivers/Streams Listings .............

................................................... .................................... 148 Table 8-2 New Lakes/Ponds Listings ................

................................................... ..................................... 156 Table 8-3 New Wetlands Listings ...................

................................................... ....................................... 156 Table 8-4 New Estuarine/Marine Waters Listings ....

................................................... .............................. 158 Table 8-5 Rivers/Streams Delisted to Another Catego ry ................................................ .......................... 166 Table 8-6 Lakes/Ponds Delisted to Another Category

................................................... ........................... 175 Table 8-7 Wetlands Delisted to Another Category ...

................................................... ............................. 176

Table 8-8 Estuarine/Marine Waters Delisted to Anoth er Category ....................................... .................... 177 Table 8-9 Status of Delisted Category 5 Rivers/Str eams .............................................. .......................... 178 Table 8-10 Status of Listed and Delisted Category 5 Lakes and Ponds ................................. ................ 200 Table 8-11 Status of Delisted Category 5 Wetlands

................................................... ............................. 202 Table 8-12 Status of Delisted Category 5 Marine/Es tuarine Waters .................................... ................... 203 Table 8-13 Rivers/Streams TMDL Current Project Upda te ................................................ ...................... 204 Table 8-14 Lakes/Ponds TMDL Current Project Update

................................................... ....................... 215 Table 8-15 Wetland TMDL Current Project Update ....

................................................... ........................... 216 Table 8-16 Estuarine/Marine Current TMDL Project Up date .............................................. ...................... 2162012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 5 

# C HAPTER 

# 1 P REFACE

Contact: Susanne Meidel, DEP BLWQ, Division of Env ironmental Assessment (DEA)

Tel: (207) 441-3612 email: Susanne.K.Meidel@maine.gov

This document, which is referred to briefly as the ‘Integrated Report’ or ‘IR’, is submitted to fulfill biennial reporting requirements on both a f ederal and state level. The federal requirement arises from the Clean Water Act (CWA), particularly Section 305(b) (report on the state of waters), Section 303(d) (list of impaired waters), and Section 314 (Clean Lakes Program). The state requirement arises from 38 MRS A Section 464.3.A. (report on the quality of the State's waters to the Maine Legislature). T he Maine Department of Environmental Protection (The Department, DEP or MDEP) assembles these reports with input from many sources and recognizes that the Section 305(b) Repo rt and Section 303(d) List are important ways of regularly communicating information on the health, current status and trends of the

State’s waters.

For the 2012 Integrated Report the Department has u pdated tabular summaries of water quality status (Appendices; Chapter 4 and Chapter 8 ) that appeared in the 2010 Integrated Report. Updates were primarily based on monitoring data collected in 2009 and 2010 although more recent data was consulted where appro priate. Department staff and external contacts have also updated narrative content as nee ded, including programmatic descriptions and summary information. For more in-depth backgro und information about specific water quality programs please refer to the 2006 Integrate d Water Quality Report, available on the

web at: http://www.maine.gov/dep/water/monitoring/305b/2006 /2006_Final_305b_Report.pdf

Maine waterbodies are assigned to one of five categ ories (or sub-categories) that describe water quality status in the Integrated Report (Exec utive Summary, pages 8-12, and Chapters 4 and 5). Those waters that are currently listed un der Category 5 represent U.S. Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 303(d) list “impaired waters” and require development and submission of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) report to the Unite d States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

The 2012 Integrated Report provides:

• 

### Delineation of water quality assessment units (AUs) , identified by their 10-digit HUC (Hydrologic Unit Code) followed by a waterbody-spec ific code (Appendices II-IV) for rivers/streams, lakes/ponds and wetlands; marine/es tuarine waterbodies (Appendix V) are identified by a Waterbody ID, supplemented by the r elevant DMR Area code where necessary; river/stream AUs can be viewed using thi s Google Earth Project (note that the project is in development): www.maine.gov/dep/gis/datamaps/lawb_integrated_repo rt/lawb_integrated_report.kmz ; Note that the United States Geological Survey has r eplaced the HUC system with the WBD (Watershed Boundary Dataset) system. Because o f this conversion, a mismatch

now exists between some HUCs used in the draft IR a nd current WBDs (former HUCs). DEP did not update the HUC part of any AU ID to con form to the new WBD system and is retaining the term ‘HUC’ to indicate continued usag e of the older system.

• 

### Water quality attainment status for river/stream, l ake/pond, wetland and marine/estuarine AUs (Appendices II-V);

• 

### Basis for the water quality standard attainment det erminations for river/stream, lake/pond and marine/estuarine AUs (Chapter 4 and Appendices ) and for wetland AUs (Chapter 5 and Appendix IV);

• 

### Schedules for additional monitoring planned for cer tain AUs (Appendices II-IV);2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 6 • 

### Identification of AUs requiring Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) determinations and a schedule (priority) for those waters (Chapter 8, Ta bles 8-13 to 8-16, and Appendices II-V);
The 2012 Integrated Report presents State of Maine water quality assessment summaries for rivers/streams, lakes/ponds and wetlands that have been generated by the Assessment Database (ADB). ADB is public domain software deve loped by EPA to improve states’ ability to track and document water quality assessment resu lts. Though marine/estuarine assessment data are not cur rently stored in Maine’s ADB, assessment results are reported in the 2012 Appendi ces. The Department plans to incorporate marine/estuarine waterbodies in the ADB over the next two years.



# D ATA 

# S OURCES AND 

# A CKNOWLEDGEMENTS



# Sources of River and Stream Assessment Data

The Department generates much of the data for the a ssessment through the various monitoring programs it conducts, notably the Biomon itoring Program, Surface Water Ambient Toxics (SWAT) Monitoring Program, the Atlantic Salm on Recovery Plan, and water quality studies for specific rivers and streams for waste l oad allocation and TMDLs. Additionally, data are provided from a variety of professional an d volunteer monitoring groups. These include other state agencies and resources (Departm ent of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife, Atlantic Salmon Commission, Department of Health an d Human Services, University of Maine System), federal agencies (U.S. Environmental Prote ction Agency, U.S. Geological Survey, National Park Service), other governmental agencies (Saco River Corridor Commission, St. Croix International Waterway Commission), tribes (P enobscot Indian Nation, Houlton Band of Maliseet Indians) and a number of volunteer watersh ed groups and conservation organizations that are working cooperatively with D epartment staff under the Maine Volunteer River Monitoring Program (VRMP) and that follow an EPA approved Quality Assurance Project Plan, or that follow monitoring practices s pecifically approved by MDEP (Watershed councils of the Dennys, East Machias, Machias, Plea sant, Narraguagus, Ducktrap and Sheepscot Rivers, Presumpscot River Watch, Royal Ri ver Conservation Trust, Sheepscot Valley Conservation Association, The Nature Conserv ancy, Friends of Merrymeeting Bay).



# Sources of Lake Assessment Data

The Department’s Lake Assessment Section manages mu ch of the data collected from lakes within the state. A strong partnership with the Ma ine Volunteer Lakes Monitoring Program (VLMP, Inc.) assures the quality and comparability of the data collected through numerous regional entities and local lake associations. Reg ional entities include Cobbossee Watershed
District, Lakes Environmental Association, St. Croi x International Waterway Commission, Allagash Wilderness Waterway, Penobscot Indian Nati on, Portland Water District, Auburn Water District, Acadia National Park, and Rangeley Lakes Heritage Trust. Data has also been acquired from private consultants (such as Lak e and Watershed Resource Management Assoc., Biodiversity Research Institute, Florida Po wer and Light as part of regulatory requirements) and water utilities that belong to th e Maine Water Utility Association. Additional data is acquired through the Maine Department of In land Fisheries & Wildlife (DIF&W) and through cooperative projects with the University of Maine System, Colby College, Unity College, Soil and Water Conservation Districts and similar entities. Data collected under probability based studies conducted within EPA Regi on I and as part of the National Lake Assessment Study being conducted by EPA Headquarter s is also considered.2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 7 

# Sources of Marine Assessment Data

The Department utilizes data for assessments in mar ine waters from its own environmental and toxics monitoring programs including the Surfac e Water Ambient Toxics and the Gulf of

Maine Council on the Marine Environment’s Gulfwatch project, and to a large extent from a variety of governmental agencies, academic institut ions, non-profit organizations and municipalities, such as the Maine Healthy Beaches p rogram, Maine Department of Marine Resources, New Hampshire Department of Environmenta l Services, University of Maine, BioDiversity Research Institute, Casco Bay Estuary Partnership, Kennebec Estuary Land
Trust, Marine Environmental Research Institute, Mou nt Desert Island Biological Laboratory, Town of Rockport Conservation Commission, and the W ells National Estuarine Research Reserve. Additionally, a number of volunteer monit oring groups such as the Bagaduce Watershed Association, Friends of Blue Hill Bay, Fr iends of Casco Bay, Georges River
Tidewater Association, Mousam and Kennebunk Rivers Alliance, Sheepscot Valley Conservation Association, and Spruce Creek Associat ion monitor Maine’s estuarine and coastal waters. The Department currently accepts d ata from organizations with approved Quality Assurance Project Plans (QAPPs) whose monit oring programs and analytical labs enable collection and processing of quality data, a nd from selected organization with Department-approved sampling plans.



# Sources of Wetlands Assessment Data

The Department generates most of its assessment dat a for wetlands through the Biological Monitoring Program (see Chapter 5 for additional in formation). Wetland biomonitoring is

coordinated with the State’s river and stream biomo nitoring program using a 5-year rotating basin schedule. At present, annual wetland monitori ng is primarily focused on freshwater lacustrine and riverine fringe wetlands. Under Mai ne’s Water Classification Program,

wetlands are classified with associated surface wat ers. Wetlands that are part of great ponds or natural lakes and ponds less than 10 acres in si ze are considered GPA waters. All

freshwater wetlands not classified as GPA waters ar e classified under Sections 467 and 468 (Classification of Major River Basins and Classific ation of Minor Drainages) according to the drainage basin in which they occur and the classifi cation of associated water bodies. The 2012 Integrated Report includes class attainment de terminations for monitored wetlands based on MDEP biologists’ expert evaluation of macr oinvertebrate community structure and function and statutory narrative aquatic life use c riteria (38 MRSA §465). Data for permitted wetland gains and losses is provided through the DE P Wetland Loss Tracking System maintained by the Division of Land Resource Regulat ion.2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 8 

# C HAPTER 

# 2 E XECUTIVE 

# S UMMARY AND 

# R ESPONSE TO 

# C OMMENTS



# E XECUTIVE 

# S UMMARY



# Surface Waters

Updates to water quality assessments for the 2012 I ntegrated Report were primarily based on monitoring data collected in 2009 and 2010 although more recent data was consulted where appropriate. The report continues to base assessme nts of rivers/streams, lakes/ponds,

wetlands and marine/estuarine waters on the five ma in listing categories that were initially established for these waters in the 2002 report. T hese five main assessment categories are

as follows:

Category 1: Attaining all designated uses and water quality st andards, and no use is

threatened.

Category 2: Attains some of the designated uses; no use is thr eatened; and insufficient data

or no data and information is available to determin e if the remaining uses are attained or threatened (with presumption that all uses are atta ined).

Category 3: Insufficient data and information to determine if designated uses are attained (with presumption that one or more uses may be impa ired).

Category 4: Impaired or threatened for one or more designated uses, but does not require development of a TMDL (Total Maximum Daily Load) re port.

Category 5: Waters impaired or threatened for one or more desi gnated uses by a pollutant(s), and a TMDL report is required.

Section 4-1 on Assessment Methodology contains more detailed information on the listing categories and sub-categories.



# S UMMARY OF 

# C HANGES

The size and percentage results from the 2010 throu gh 2012 Integrated Reports (Table 2-1) are not exactly comparable due to changes in assess ment and mapping technology over the years and correction of errors, but they can give a n idea of changes in the approximate amounts of waters in each category. For rivers and streams, a number of waterbodies (totaling ~240 miles) were administratively moved f rom Category 4 in 2010 to Category 5 in

2012 to correct an error in the Assessment Database (ADB), which is used to track waterbodies; see pages 78-79 for more information. Note that wetlands areas were established for the first time for the 2012 report; therefore, only 2012 data are shown in Table 2-1 for this waterbody type.

For rivers and streams, there were increases in bot h Category 3 (10 waters, 69 miles) and Category 5 (7 waters, 125 miles), primarily due to new monitoring data showing that certain waters may not be, or are not, attaining uses. Cat egory 4 increased by 59 miles due to approval of the Maine Statewide % Impervious Cover TMDL, which moved 30 waters from Category 5-A to 4-A; five other waters (94 miles) w ere moved from Category 5-A to 4-B as a result of new permits. TMDL monitoring confirmed a ttainment of bacteria criteria for two waterbodies (3.34 miles) previously listed in Categ ory 4-A and they were moved to Category 2. Table 2-1 reveals that the lakes and ponds of Ma ine were relatively stable (as a percent of total assessed waters) with respect to their listin g categories during the 2010 to 2012 time frame. This period saw an increase in Category 2 w aters (4 lakes) and the addition of one lake (previously in Category 3) to Category 5a. Fo r wetlands there were increases in2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 9 

### Category 5 in 2012 (3 wetlands, 339 acres) as well as in Category 4-A (5 wetlands, 51 acres due to TMDL approval). For marine waters, the incr ease in Category 5 area is due to two new listings for non-attainment of Marine Life Use Support standards. No listing changes occurred to Category 4; rather, the difference betw een 2010 and 2012 areas is due to the inclusion in 2012 of a segment area for one waterbo dy, and the correction of the segment area for another. One waterbody was delisted to Ca tegory 2 due to the removal of a shellfish consumption impairment.

Table 2-1 Summary of Changes to Surface Water Asses sment Categories – 2010 to 2012

Note: These figures do not include waters listed un der Category 4-A for atmospheric deposition of merc ury 

### Rivers and Streams

31,215 = Total Miles Assessed in 2010

31,298 =Total Miles Assessed in 2012

20 10 Miles in Category 1 % of Total 2010

Assessed Miles 20 12 Miles in

Category 2 % of Total 2012

Assessed Miles % Change

'10 - '12 Change in

Miles '10 - '12
Category 1 4,338 13.9 4,338 13.9 0 0 Category 2 25,394 81.4 25,371 81.1 -0.3 -23 Category 3 314 1.0 383 1.2 0.2 69 Category 4 446 1.4 273 0.9 -0.6 -173 Category 5 719 2.3 933 3.0 0.7 214



### Lakes

986,952 = Total Acres Assessed in 2010

986,952 = Total Acres Assessed in 2012

2010 Acres in Category % of Total 2010

Assessed Acres 2012 Acres in

Category % of Total 2012

Assessed Acres % Change

'10 – ‘12 Change in

Acres '10 - '12
Category 1 295,443 29.9 295,443 29.9 0 0 Category 2 606,236 61.4 606945 61.5 0.1 709 Category 3 410 0.04 0 0 -0.04 -410 Category 4 76,080 7.7 75915 7.7 0 -165 Category 5 8,783 0.9 8649 0.9 -0.01 -134 

### Wetlands (Acres)

n/a = Total Acres Assessed in 2010

1240 = Total Acres Assessed in 2012

2010 Acres in Category % of Total 2010

Assessed Acres 2012 Acres in

Category 2 % of Total 2012

Assessed Acres % Change

'10 - '12 Change in

Acres '10 - '12
Category 1 n/a n/a 0.00 0.0 n/a n/a
Category 2 n/a n/a undetermined n/a n/a n/a
Category 3 n/a n/a 841 67.8 n/a n/a
Category 4 n/a n/a 57 4.6 n/a n/a
Category 5 n/a n/a 342 27.6 n/a n/a



### Marine Waters (Acres)

1,821,434 = Total Acres Assessed in 2010

1,840,147 = Total Acres Assessed in 2012

2010 Acres in Category % of Total 2010

Assessed Acres 2012 Acres in

Category % of Total 2012

Assessed Acres % Change

'10 - '12 Change in

Acres '10 - '12
Category 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Category 2 3 1,718,509 94.35 1,721,748 93.56 -0.80 4 3,239 Category 3 3,979 0.22 2,835 0.15 -0.07 -1,144 Category 4 5 98,380 5.41 111,253 6 6.05 0.64 12,873 6

Category 5 1,709 0.09 4,311 0.23 0.14 2,602+ 72012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 10 Marine Waters (Square Miles)

2,846 = Total Square Miles Assessed in 2010

2,876 = Total Square Miles Assessed in 2012
2010 Square

Miles in Category % of Total 2010

Assessed Square Miles 2012 Square

Miles in Category % of Total 2012

Assessed Square Miles % Change

'10 - '12 Change in

Square Miles

'10 - '12
Category 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Category 2 3 2685.17 94.35 2,690 93.56 -0.79 4 4.83 Category 3 6.22 0.22 4.43 0.15 -0.07 -1.79 Category 4 5 153.72+ 6 5.41 174 6 6.05 0.64 20.28 6

Category 5 2.67 0.09 6.74 0.23 0.14 4.07+ 7

1 Single-Category Reporting miles as generated by fi nal 2010 cycle ADB.

2 Single-Category Reporting miles as generated by fi nal 2012 cycle ADB.

3 Category 2 areas are an underestimate as not all a reas have been quantified.

4 While the area of Category 2 waters increased slig htly in 2012, the larger increase in area for Categ ory 4 and 5 waters caused the percent of the total 2012 assessed area accounted f or by Category 2 waters to decrease slightly.

5 2010 numbers only reflect Category 4-A listings; 2 012 numbers are for Category 4-A, 4-B-1 and 4-C.

6 No listing changes occurred to Category 4. Differ ence in 2010 and 2012 acreage due to 1) 2012 inclus ion of segment acres for Waterbody ID 812, and 2) corrected calculation of s egment area for Waterbody ID 722-25B.

7 Variable additional miles due to Combined Sewer Ov erflow waters



### All freshwaters in Maine are listed for an impaired Fish Consumption Use caused by mercury from sources beyond the region; miles affected by t his statewide listing are not recorded in Table 2-1. These waters were listed in Sub-Category 5-C in the 2006 Integrated Report. These waters were moved to Category 4-A in the 2008 cycle because of US EPA’s approval, on December 20, 2007, of a Regional Mercury Total M aximum Daily Load (TMDL). The New England States and New York developed the regional mercury TMDL to address mercury impairments that are caused by sources beyond the R egion. The State of Maine has already taken aggressive action to reduce sources of mercur y within the State’s jurisdiction. Further mercury reductions will be required from sources ou tside the State’s boundaries to provide the desired reduction of mercury in Maine’s waters. Category 5-D, Legacy Pollutants, includes many mainstem river segments that are listed for no n-attainment of the Fish Consumption use due to PCBs in fish tissue. In September of 201 2 EPA approved a statewide % Impervious Cover TMDL that resulted in the removal of 30 impaired segments from Category 5-A to Category 4-A. The TMDL addresses aquatic li fe use impairments as indicated by habitat and dissolved oxygen assessments as well as macroinvertebrate and algae (periphyton) bioassessments.



# Wetlands

Maine DEP began development of a biological monitor ing and assessment program for freshwater wetlands in 1998 as part of the biomonit oring program. The Biological Monitoring Program provides water quality information for a wi de array of programs, and includes ambient monitoring, evaluation of water quality cla ssification attainment, and assessment of risks and impacts.

The wetlands initiative currently focuses on aquati c macroinvertebrates as indicators of wetland ecological integrity, and plans to build ca pacity to assess multiple biological assemblages including algae and plant communities. Beginning in 2010, the Biological Monitoring Program has included provisional aquatic life use attainment determinations for wetlands in this report.2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 11 

# Groundwater

The Groundwater Program is described in Chapter 6. Responsibility for groundwater resource assessment and protection is shared among the Department of Environmental Protection, the Department of Health and Human Serv ices’ Division of Environmental Health, the Maine Geological Survey in the Department of Co nservation and the U. S. Geological Survey. Several other agencies, particularly the D epartment of Transportation, Department of Agriculture, and State Planning Office (SPO) may in vestigate groundwater contamination problems in certain areas and they also contribute to groundwater protection through development of ordinances and management practices that are designed to reduce the risk of harming groundwater quality.

A significant portion of Maine's groundwater may be threatened by contamination, particularly in unforested areas, which comprise approximately 1 1% of the State. Drinking water quality is an issue that carries significant public concern for both private and public well supplies. Public interest in groundwater is primarily focused on its use as a drinking water supply (groundwater provides 60% of all human demand and 7 5% of livestock demand statewide) and on its use as a source of process water for ind ustry. Numerous wells in Maine have been made unpotable by pollution from specific point sou rces and also from nonpoint source pollution. Important sources of groundwater contam ination in Maine include disposal activities such as septic systems and landfills, le aking storage facilities, agriculture, spilled hazardous materials or previously unregulated activ ities.

Monitoring of groundwater in Maine is either site-s pecific or generalized. Monitoring at a particular site is typically done to gather data on water quality impacts of particular activities, and may or may not be research-related. Most of th e groundwater data collected in Maine is the result of permit conditions, enforcement agreem ents or impact assessments. With the advent of the Environmental and Geographic Analysis Database (EGAD) at the DEP, many of these data which are potentially useful for researc h purposes are now readily made available to the public or other agencies in report or map fo rm. This effort enhances the ability of the DEP to communicate and report groundwater and other data to the EPA and other state or federal agencies, and to share information with the general public.

Ambient monitoring refers to large-area, long-term monitoring conducted to obtain trend information on groundwater quality or quantity. Th e MGS and the USGS carry out these types of monitoring projects under several cooperat ive agreements. The USGS and MGS maintain a statewide network of groundwater observa tion wells to track changes in water quality and quantity. For the purpose of this repo rt, data derived from the DHHS Public Water Supply Monitoring Program are used as ambient groun dwater quality data. These water tests are from single-source untreated public water suppl y wells.

Major impediments to effective groundwater protecti on in Maine include; the lack of data to quantify the impact of some nonpoint pollution sour ces and general public unfamiliarity with key groundwater concepts and issues. Public miscon ception about groundwater is probably the major factor contributing to degradation of thi s resource. The development of a comprehensive and accessible database for water dat a (EGAD) has increased the accessibility of the wide variety of data collected on water quality by various state agencies. Continuing use of this database will improve operat ions at the agencies responsible for groundwater protection and assessment, and provide a resource for increasing the public’s awareness of groundwater issues. Relative to groun dwater protection, the principal uses of this database are to (1) help design clean-up strat egies in areas of known contamination; (2) plan future development that provides for better pr otection of public health and safety; (3) assist in prioritizing protection of sensitive grou ndwater and surface water bodies, wetlands,2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 12 

### and other resources; (4) enhance understanding of t he spatial relationships between water resources and population as they relate to potentia l or known pollution sources; and (5) assess the flow and transport interrelationships be tween ground- and surface water, in order to evaluate groundwater impacts on surface water bo dies and on groundwater-dependent

habitat.



# R ESPONSE TO 

# C OMMENTS



# Process to Solicit Public Comments

The following subsections detail the actions taken by the Department of Environmental Protection to promote the public's knowledge of the existence and availability of the draft version of the 2012 Integrated Water Quality Monito ring and Assessment Report (Integrated Report, or IR, for short, formerly know as the 305b Report). This process was undertaken in order to gain comments from the public on the conte nts and conclusions of the draft report. The official period of time when the Report was ava ilable for public comment was from April 10, 2013 to the close of business on May 10, 2013.

In addition to the public comment process outlined below, the draft version of the 2012 Integrated Report was reviewed internally by Depart ment staff as well as by US EPA staff in order to produce the final version of the Report.

In response to a comment received during the initia l public comment period, the Department changed the listing category for one estuarine/mari ne assessment unit from Category 3 to 5- A. A second comment period was opened to allow for public review of this change. For details of the second comment period see the below (pages 15-23).



# R EPORT 

# P OSTING ON THE 

# D EPARTMENT 

# ' S 

# W EBSITE 

# :

On April 10, 2013 the Department posted the draft 2 012 Integrated Report as two digital files in the Adobe® Portable Document Format (PDF) on the public comments section of the Department’s web page: www.maine.gov/dep/comment/ . Hardcopies of the draft report are made available to the public on request.



# M AILING TO THE 

# A GENCY 

# R ULEMAKING 

# S UBSCRIPTION 

# S ERVICE 

# L IST AND

OTHER INTERESTED PARTIES 

# :

The Department offers a subscription service that p rovides notification of both rulemaking changes and rule adoption for all department rules. Subscribers to this service include both individual citizens and representatives of organiza tions that wish to be contacted when the DEP releases rulemaking information. On April 26, 2013 the Department e-mailed approximately 100 notices to people and entities on the Agency Rulemaking Subscription Service List, including all other natural resource agencies within state government.

The text of that notice follows and is italicized i n order to differentiate it from other text contained in this Report.2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 13 

## Opportunity for Comment

Draft 2012 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report

The Maine Department of Environmental Protection ha s prepared the draft “2012 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report” for submi ssion to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as required of Sections 303(d) and 305(b) of the Cl ean Water Act, and in fulfillment of the reporting requirements of 38 M.R.S.A. Section 464.3.A of the State of Maine’s Water Classification Program. This report is available for public comment until 5:00 P M, May 10, 2013. Reviewers of the document should pay particular attention to the listing methods req uired by the USEPA for surface water assessments fo r this report. These methods are described in Chapter 4 of the document. Specific waterbody attainment and impairment assignments can be found in the Appe ndices.

Comments become part of the public record and are p ublished in the final version of the Report. All

comments should be sent to:

By email: IRcomments.DEP@maine.gov By fax: 207-287-7826

Susanne Meidel Maine Department of Environmental Protection

State House Station 17 Augusta, ME 04333-0017

http://www.maine.gov/dep/comment/comment.html?id=51 7066

Also, during the week of April 10, approximately 13 0 interested parties (e.g. towns, nongovernmental organizations, tribes) received a comp arable notice. The text of that notice

follows and is italicized in order to differentiate it from other text contained in this Report.



## Maine’s DRAFT 2012 Integrated Water Quality Monitor ing and Assessment Report

Available for Public Comment until May 10, 2013

The Department of Environmental Protection has prep ared a draft 2012 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report for submission to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as required of Sections 305(b) and 303(d) of the Clean Water Act, and in fulfillment of the reporting requirements of 38 M.R.S.A. Section 464.3.A of the State of Maine’s Water Classification Program.

This report is available for public comment until M ay 10, 2013. Reviewers of the document should pay particular attention to the categories and listing methods required by the USEPA for the surface water assessments in this report. These methods are desc ribed in Chapter 4. Specific surface waterbody attainment and impairment assignments can be found in the Appendices (a separate file). The appendice s are broken into four waterbody types: rivers/stream s, lakes, wetlands and estuarine/marine waters. Categories 1-3 are for waters that are not impaired , categories 4 and 5 are for water segments that ar e impaired for one or more uses.

The draft documents (2 pdf files) can be found on t he Department’s website at: www.maine.gov/dep/comment/2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 14 

### We encourage you to review the document and provide comment on this year’s report. Comments become part of the public record and are published in the final version of the Report. Comments shoul d

be sent to:

Email: IRcomments.DEP@maine.gov

Fax: 207-287-7826

Contact:

Susanne Meidel Maine Department of Environmental Protection

State House #17
Augusta, ME 04333 Susanne.K.Meidel@maine.gov



# L EGAL 

# N OTICE 

# :

During the week of April 10, 2013 the Department pr epared a legal notice that ran in four daily newspapers located around the state. Those newspap ers (and approximate current weekday circulations) were as follows: The Bangor Daily New s (45,000), The Kennebec Journal (11,000), The Lewiston Sun Journal (29,000), and Th e Portland Press Herald (47,000). The text of that legal notice follows and is italicized in order to differentiate it from other text contained in this Report.



## Legal Notice

Maine Department of Environmental Protection

Notice of Public Comment Opportunity for the Draft “2012 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report ”



### The Department of Environmental Protection has prep ared the draft “2012 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report“ for submission to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency as required of Sections 303(d) and 305(b) of the Clean Water Act, and in fulfillment of the reporting requirements of 38 M.R.S.A. Section 464.3.A of the State of Maine’s Water Classification Program. This report is available for public comment until 5:00 P M, May 10, 2013. Reviewers of the document should pay particular attention to the listing methods req uired by the USEPA for surface water assessments fo r this report. These methods are described in Chapte r 4 of the document. Specific waterbody attainment and impairment assignments can be found in the Appe ndices.

The report (2 pdf files) may be found on the Depart ment’s website at: www.maine.gov/dep/comment/

Comments become part of the public record and are p ublished in the final version of the Report. All

comments should be sent to: By email: IRcomments.DEP@maine.gov By fax: 207-287-78262012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 15 

### Susanne Meidel Maine Department of Environmental Protection

State House #17 Augusta, ME 04333



# S ECOND 

# P UBLIC 

# C OMMENT 

# P ERIOD

In response to a comment received during the initia l public comment period (April 10 to May 10, 2013), the Department changed the listing categ ory for one estuarine/marine assessment unit from Category 3 to 5-A. A second comment peri od (January 30 to February 14, 2014) was opened to allow for public review of this chang e. The comment period was announced via two e-mails, the first to the Department’s Rule making Subscription Service List (approximately 100 recipients) and the second to ot her interested parties (approximately 130 recipients; e.g. towns, non-governmental organizati ons, tribes). The text of those e-mails

follows and is italicized in order to differentiate it from other text contained in this Report.

Dear Interested Party, In accordance with Sections 303(d) and 305(b) of th e U.S. Clean Water Act, the Maine Department of Environmental Protection (MDEP) prepared the DRAFT 2012 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report. The Report was available for pu blic comment from April 10 to May 10, 2013.

In response to a comment that was received during t he public comment period MDEP has moved one marine assessment unit [Waterbody ID 812-3, Portsmo uth Harbor (south and west of Gerrish Island)] from Category 3 to Category 5-A. The changes from the Draft 2012 Integrated Report are summarized in

the attached document. At this time, MDEP is solic iting public comment solely on this one category change. The public comment period on all other asp ects of the Draft 2012 Integrated Report closed on May 10, 2013 and a section with MDEP’s responses to comments received by that date will be added to the Final 2012 Report. MDEP will not respond to f urther comments on any portion of the 2012 Report aside from the category change for assessment unit 812-3. Comments are due by February 14, 2014.

Sincerely,

Susanne Meidel

Water Quality Standards Coordinator ME Department of Environmental Protection
Augusta, ME 04333

Phone: 207 / 441-3612

The text of the attachment that accompanied the e-m ails announcing the second public comment period follows and is italicized in order t o differentiate it from other text contained in this Report.2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 16 

## Public Comment Opportunity for a Change between Mai ne’s 2012 DRAFT and

FINAL Integrated Monitoring and Assessment Report

The Maine Department of Environmental Protection (M DEP) prepared the “2012 DRAFT Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report” (IR) for public comment as required of Sections 303(d) and 305(b) of the Clean Water Act, and in fulfillment of the reporting requirements of 38 M.R.S.A. Section 464.3.A of the State of Maine’s Water Classification Program. The DRAFT report can be viewed here: http://www.maine.gov/dep/water/monitoring/305b/ . The report was available for public comment from April 10 to May 10, 2013. During this period, MDEP received a comment regarding the listing category for one estuarine/marine assessmen t unit (AU). In response to that comment, MDEP has changed the listing category for the AU in question from Category 3 (Waters with

Insufficient Data or Information to Determine if De signated Uses are Attained) to Category 5-A [Waters Impaired by Pollutants Other Than Those Lis ted in 5-B Through 5-D (TMDL Required)]. MDEP is now offering stakeholders an opportunity to comment on this change. The details of the listing change and the edits that were made to the DRAFT IR are shown in the following

pages.

By way of two e-mails sent to different MDEP distri bution lists, and this file included as an attachment, we invite interested parties to review the changes shown below and provide comment by 5:00 PM on February 14, 2014 . The comments will become part of the public record and be published in the final version of the Report. Please note that the public comment period on all other aspects of the 2012 DRAFT IR cl osed on May 10, 2013 and that comments received during that period as well as MDEP respons es will be included in the final IR. At this time, MDEP is not inviting additional comments on a ny other sections of the 2012 DRAFT IR aside from the changes shown below.

Comments should be sent to:

Email: IRcomments.DEP@maine.gov

Fax: 207-287-7826

Contact:

Susanne Meidel Maine Department of Environmental Protection

State House #17 Augusta, ME 04333 Susanne.K.Meidel@maine.gov2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 17 

## Change in Listing Category for Estuarine/Marine Ass essment Unit ‘Portsmouth

Harbor (south and west of Gerrish Island)’

Background

In the 2010 Integrated Monitoring and Assessment Re port (IR), Maine DEP (MDEP) listed the estuarine portion of the Piscataqua River as a sing le assessment unit (AU), ‘Piscataqua R. Estuary, Kittery, Eliot, So. Berwick’, Waterbody ID 812-1. The AU was listed in Category 3 based on survey information obtained from the New H ampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) which indicated a loss of eelgrass in Maine waters. Based on a field assessment and NHDES data review, MDEP split the AU into two units for the 2012 DRAFT IR, and placed the upper segment ‘Piscataqua R. Estuary (Eliot, Kittery)’, Waterbody ID 812-2, into Category 5-A for a Marine Life Use Support impairme nt with a cause of ‘Nutrient/Eutrophication Biological Indicators’. For the lower segment, ‘Po rtsmouth Harbor (south and west of Gerrish Island)’ (‘Portsmouth Harbor’ for short), Waterbody ID 812-3, MDEP acknowledged that eelgrass had declined but in the absence of causal data indicating an impairment MDEP elected not to list this AU in Category 5-A but instead pla ced it in Category 3.

During the public comment period (4/10 – 5/10/13) f or the 2012 DRAFT IR, MDEP received a comment questioning the appropriateness of the Cate gory 3 Portsmouth Harbor listing. The commenter cited the 2006 EPA IR guidance which spec ified that “[I]f a designated use is not supported and the segment is impaired or threatened , the fact that the specific pollutant is not known does not provide a basis for excluding the se gment from Category 5. These segments

must be listed unless the state can demonstrate tha t no pollutant(s) causes or contribute to the impairment.”. As MDEP has acknowledged, eelgrass h as declined in the AU in question. In response to this comment, and based on additional d ata review, we are now moving the AU to Category 5-A. The following section provides infor mation on the changes that were made to the 2012 DRAFT IR for this category change.

List of changes made in 2012 DRAFT IR for Portsmout h Harbor listing change 1



### The largest change in text was made in Chapter 4, S urface Water Monitoring & Assessments, in the subsection on Estuaries/Coastal Waters and spec ifically within the Summary of Statewide Status (p. 69-71 in 2012 DRAFT IR). This summary p rovides information on the waterbodies found in categories 1 through 5 in the 2012 report. The following two paragraphs show the changes MDEP has made as a result of moving Portsmo uth Harbor from Category 3 to 5-A.

Category 3:

The 2012 assessment removes 5.06 square miles of t he Penobscot River segment previously listed for lobster tomalley consumption (see Category 2 above). Note that the 2010 report incorrectly listed this segment as 0.4 squar e miles, when the segment size is now correctly calculated at 5.09 square miles. The 201 2 Category 3 listings are also amended

based on the Category 5 listingsubdivision of the 2010 Piscataqua River estuary (Kittery, Eli ot, South Berwick) segment 812-1

. into Portsmouth Harbor south and west of Gerrish Is land (Waterbody ID 812-3) and Piscataqua River estuary i ncluding Eliot and Kittery (Waterbody ID 812-2; see also Category 5 below). The continued C ategory 3 listing of the 2.16 square mile segment of the Maine portion of Portsmouth Harbor i ndicates an acknowledgement of eelgrass areal coverage loss in excess of 20% from 1996 to 2 011, as documented by New Hampshire

1 Note that only items that were changed are shown h ere.2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 18 

### Department of Environmental Services aerial photogr aphy and groundtruthing surveys. This segment does not accompany the Piscataqua River est uary segment in Category 5 due to

insufficient causal data to indicate whether or not the marine life use is impaired based on loss of eelgrass.

Category 5: The 2012 assessment assigns an additional 1.914.07 square miles to the Category 5-A listings based on a Marine Life Use Support impairment s within the Piscataqua River estuary (Eliot, Kittery) (1.91 square miles) and Portsmouth Harbor (south a nd west of Gerrish Island) (2.16 square miles). BothThis segment

s of the estuary waswere listed in Category 3 in

2010 as part of one larger segment (Waterbody ID 812-1: Piscataqua R. Estuary, Kittery, Eliot, So. Berwick). The Piscataqua River Estuary and Por tsmouth Harbor areas were and has been moved to Category 5 for this reporting cycle as a r esult of additional available data and observations that indicate impairment based on a gr eater than 20% areal cover loss of eelgrass

from 1996 to 2011 2010, as documented by New Hampshire Departmen t of Environmental Services aerial photography and groundtruthing surv eys(see also Category 2) . Sufficient

evidence exists for th ise Piscataqua River Estuary segment to attribute include an impairment cause of nutrient/eutrophication biological indicat ors ; however, the ‘cause unknown’ designation for the Portsmouth Harbor segment acknowledges that insufficient data exist to determine whether or not the marine life use is impaired due to pollutants

.

Concomitant changes were also made in Chapter 4, Su rface Water Monitoring & Assessments,

in the subsection on Estuaries/Coastal Waters and s pecifically within the section on nutrients/eutrophication biological indicator cause s (p. 73-74 in 2012 DRAFT IR).

• Eelgrass within the Piscataqua River segment has de clined from 299.1 acres to 6.8 acres (98% loss) from 1996 to 2010, and that sufficient d ata exist to assign a Category 5 listing for Marine Life Use Support impairment with cause o f nutrient/eutrophication biological

indicators.

• The Portsmouth Harbor segment west of Gerrish Islan d has also demonstrated considerable eelgrass loss, with a 49% decrease in acreage from 1996 to 2010 and a 62% decrease during the same time period when adjusted for decline in both areal coverage and plant density. While the DEP acknowledges the loss of eelgrass within this area and therefore the Category 5 listing

, a ‘ cause unknown ’

designation a Category 3 listing has been assigned until further data collection (planned for summer 2014) and analyses can be completed to investigate potential causes reasons for population decline.

The change in category for the AU in question also necessitated an update in a number of summary tables; please see Appendix 1 for details o n those items.

In terms of changes to the IR Appendices, the follo wing two pages show estuarine and marine Categories 3 and 5-A lists after the Portsmouth Har bor AU was moved.2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality ReportMaine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List19Note: Bold text indicates waters that were moved into Category 3 during this reporting cycleCategory 3: Estuarine and Marine Waters with Insufficient Data or Information to Determine ifDesignated Uses are AttainedWaterbodyIDDMRAreaSegment DescriptionSegment Size(acres)Segment Size(sq. miles)SegmentClassLast YearSampledProjectedSample DateComments824-2 4-APerkins Cove (Bald Head tomouth of Kennebunk Riverestuary)13 0.02 SBNo stationsor surveysMany boats – no data. Initially closedto shellfish harvest due to OBDs.812-31Portsmouth Harbor (south andwest of Gerrish Island)1,3802.16SB20102016Eelgrass loss documented in NHand Maine waters; assessment ofpotential ME Marine Life Useimpairment incomplete due to lackof causal data.802-26 18-DQuahog Bay (southeast of PoleIsland)590 0.92 SB 2011 2012Possible Dissolved Oxygen non-attainment. Closed to shellfish harvestdue to OBDs.722-10 29-B Matinicus Island & Ragged Island2,203 3.44 SBNo stationsor surveysFar off the Mainecoast - logisticalproblems702-3 60 Little River (Perry) 29 0.05 SB 2011 2012Non-point source pollution.Total =2,8354,2154.436.592012 Maine Integrated Water Quality ReportMaine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List20Note: Bold text indicates waters that were moved into Category 3 during this reporting cycleCategory 5-A: Estuarine and Marine Waters Impairedby Pollutants Other Than Those Listedin 5-B Through 5-D (TMDL Required)WaterbodyIDSegmentDescriptionSegment(acres)Segment Size(sq. miles)SegmentClassLast YearSampledImpairedUseCauseSourceTMDLPriorityComments812-2PiscataquaR. Estuary(Eliot,Kittery)1,221 1.91 SB/SC 2010MarineLife UseSupportNutrient/EutrophicationBiologicalIndicatorsSource unknownLEelgrass areal extent anddensity decreases documentedsince 1996 by NH DES and MEDMR.812-3PortsmouthHarbor(south andwest ofGerrishIsland)1,3802.16SB2010MarineLife UseSupportCauseUnknownSource unknownLEelgrass loss documented inNH and Maine waters;assignment of impairmentcause not possible until furtherdata collection (summer 2014)and analysis.811-9Mousam R.Estuary (DMRArea 6)192 0.30 SB 2010MarineLife UseSupportDissolvedOxygenMunicipal pointsource, Nonpointsource, SedimentOxygen Demand2016Includes 54.7 acre DMR closure;also listed in Category 4A forelevated fecals. Further datacollection required.811-8Saco R.Estuary576 0.90 SC 1998MarineLife UseSupportToxicity,CopperMunicipal pointsource, CSOsLAlso listed in Category 4A forelevated fecals. Further datacollection required.804-7Fore R.Estuary768 1.20 SC 2009MarineLife UseSupportMarine life,ToxicsMunicipal pointsource, CSOs,Stormwater,Hazardous wastesites, NonpointMAlso listed in Category 4A forelevated fecals. Further datacollection required.802-25Royal R.Estuary174 0.27 SB 2010MarineLife UseSupportDissolvedOxygenMunicipal pointsource,Stormwater,Nonpoint Source,Sediment OxygenDemand2016Also listed in Category 4A forelevated fecals. Pendingwasteload allocation study.Further data collection required.Total =4,3112,9316.744.582012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 21 

### Appendix 1



## Change in Listing Category for Estuarine/Marine Ass essment Unit ‘Portsmouth

Harbor (south and west of Gerrish Island)’

The change in category for the estuarine assessment unit ‘Portsmouth Harbor (south and west of Gerrish Island)’, Waterbody ID 812-3, from Categ ory 3 to Category 5-A necessitated an update in the following tables. Note that only ite ms that were changed, or that are closely related to the change in question, are shown below.

• Table 2-1, Summary of Changes to Surface Water Asse ssment Categories – 2010 to 2012 (p. 10-11 in 2012 DRAFT IR)

Marine Waters (Acres)

1,821,434 = Total Acres Assessed in 2010

1,840,147 = Total Acres Assessed in 2012

2010 Acres in Category % of Total 2010

Assessed Acres 2012 Acres in

Category % of Total 2012

Assessed Acres % Change

'10 - '12 Change in

Acres '10 - '12 Category 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Category 2 3 1,718,509 94.35 1,721,748 93. 5556 -0. 80 79 4 3,239 Category 3 3,979 0.22 4,2152,835 0.240.15 0.02-0.07 236-1,144 Category 4 5 98,380 5.41 111,253 6 6.05 0.64 12,873 6

Category 5 1,709 0.09 2,9314,311 0.160.23 0.070.14 1,2222,602 + 7



### Marine Waters (Square Miles)

2,846 = Total Square Miles Assessed in 2010

2,876 = Total Square Miles Assessed in 2012

2010 Square

Miles in Category % of Total 2010

Assessed Square Miles 2012 Square

Miles in Category % of Total 2012

Assessed Square Miles % Change

'10 - '12 Change in

Square Miles

'10 - '12
Category 1 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 Category 2 3 2685.17 94.35 2,690 93. 5556 -0. 80 79 4 4.83 Category 3 6.22 0.22 6.594.43 0.240.15 0.02-0.07 0.37-1.79 Category 4 5 153.72+ 6 5.41 174 6 6.05 0.64 20.28 6

Category 5 2.67 0.09 4.586.74 0.160.23 0.070.14 1.914.07 + 7

4 While the area of Category 2 waters increased slig htly in 2012, the larger increase in area for Categ ory 4 and 5 waters caused the percent of the total 2012 assessed area accounted f or by Category 2 waters to decrease slightly.

5 2010 numbers only reflect Category 4-A listings; 2 012 numbers are for Category 4-A, 4-B-1 and 4-C.

6 No listing changes occurred to Category 4. Differ ence in 2010 and 2012 acreage due to 1) 2012 inclus ion of segment acres for Waterbody ID 812, and 2) corrected calculation of s egment area for Waterbody ID 722-25B.

7 Variable additional miles due to Combined Sewer Ov erflow waters2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 22 

### Appendix 1

• Table 4-5, Summary of State Waters Attaining and No t Attaining Standards (p. 44)

Waterbody Type Total

Assessed for Attaining

of WQ

Standards

– Assessed

for Designated

Uses Total with

Insufficient

Data for

Assessment

– Not Assessed for Any Designated

Uses (Category 3) Total Attaining

All WQ

Standards

- Supporting All Designated

Uses (Category 1) Total

Attaining At

Least One

Standard

– Supporting at

Least One
Use, But Not

All Standards

Assessed (Category 2) Total Not

Attaining One

or More WQ

Standards

– Not Supporting

One or More

Uses – But Not Needing a

TMDL (Category 4) Total Not

Attaining One

or More WQ

Standards

– Not Supporting

One or More

Uses – and

TMDL is

Needed (Category 5)

Estuarine/Marine Square Miles 2,876 47 0.0 2,690 174 5 7 6

Estuarine/Marine (Acres) 1,840,147 4,2152,835 0.0 1,721,748 111,253 2,9314,311 5



### • Table 4-9, Individual Designated Use Support Summar y for Maine Estuarine and Marine Water (p. 46)

CWA Goals Designated Use Size Fully Supporting – Attaining WQ

Standards (square miles) Size Not

Supporting – Not Attaining

WQ Standards (square miles) Size Not

Attainable –

UAA

Performed (square miles)

Protect &

Enhance Ecosystems Marine Life 2, 838836 810 0



### • Table 4-14 Total Sizes of Category 4 and 5 Impaired Maine Estuarine and Marine Waters by Listing Cause/Stressor Type (p. 48)

Cause/Stressor Type Size Impaired (square miles)

Unknown 2



### • Table 4-19 Total Sizes of Category 4 and 5 Impaired Maine Estuarine and Marine Waters by Source Category (p. 50)

Source Category (examples) Size Impaired (square miles)

Unknown 242012 Maine Integrated Water Quality ReportMaine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List23Appendix 1•Table 8-4 New Estuarine/Marine Waters Listings (p.134)WaterbodyIDSegment DescriptionCauseCategoryComments20102012Other2012812-2Piscataqua R. Estuary(Eliot, Kittery)Nutrient/EutrophicationBiological Indicators315-A noneNew listing for Marine Life Use impairment based oneelgrass areal extent and density decreases documentedsince 1996.812-3(DMR Area 1)Portsmouth Harbor (southand west of Gerrish Island)N/ACause Unknown3135-AnoneNew listing forpotentialMarine Life Use impairment basedoneelgrass areal extent and density decreasesdocumented since 1996.documented eelgrass loss.1Waterbody ID was 812-1 in 2010 report.•Table 8-16 Estuarine/Marine Current TMDL Project Update (p. 193)WaterbodyIDSegment DescriptionCauseProject StatusTMDL SubmittalTarget Date/Priority812-2 Piscataqua R. Estuary (Eliot, Kittery)Nutrient/ EutrophicationBiological IndicatorsTMDL dictated by NH licensing and MEnitrogen criteria processes.L812-3Portsmouth Harbor (south and westof Gerrish Island)Cause UnknownTMDL contingent on identification ofimpairment cause(s); data collectionplanned for summer 2014L2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 24 

# Summary of Public Comments and Responses

The Department received a number of comments during the first official public comment period (April 10 to May 10, 2013) and one c omment during the second official public comment period (January 30 to Febru ary 14, 2014) and wishes to thank all persons who provided input. DEP received subst antive comments from the parties listed below and those comments are either quoted o r paraphrased and presented in italic typeface. A DEP response follows each comme nt and summarizes any actions taken by the Department in response to the comment. If the text does not indicate that any changes were made to the Integrated Report, the n none were made. The single comment received during the second comment period i s focused on the issue of water quality impairment in Portsmouth Harbor in the Pisc ataqua River (see Great Bay Estuary Impairments, page 32). The Department also received a number of minor comments regarding e.g. typos, unclear language or small errors or omissions. These

items have all been addressed in the final version of the report.



# D ATA 

# T IME 

# F RAME OF THE 

# R EPORT

Paraphrased comment from:

• William Taylor, Pierce Atwood LLP:

Should 2011 and 2012 data be used to supplement the 2009 and 2010 data that were used for the majority of the assessments/decisions/ actions? Should certain narrative portions of the report be updated to reflect recent events?



## MDEP Response:

Since the 2002 report, the MDEP has used a system w here public data solicitation

and DEP assessments are based on data from the seco nd and third year prior to a report year (e.g. 2009 and 2010 data for 2012 repor t). This system was instituted for purposes of timely report preparation. In an effor t to enable timely reporting for the 2014 cycle, DEP has attempted to retain the existin g data time frame with few exceptions. (Note that select narrative portions o f the report do reference events that

occurred in 2011 or 2012 but not 2013 and that one segment was moved from Category 4-A to 4-B based on 2012 permits.)



# L ISTING FOR 

# A NDROSCOGGIN VERSUS 

# P ENOBSCOT 

# R IVER 

# S EGMENTS

Paraphrased comments from:

• Scott Reed, Rumford Paper Company

• William Taylor, Pierce Atwood LLP

• Ken Gallant, Verso Paper Corporation

Why are certain Penobscot River segments where enfo rceable controls are in place listed in ‘Category 4-B: Rivers and Streams Impaire d by Pollutants – Pollution Control Requirements Reasonably Expected to Result in Attai nment’ but one Androscoggin River segment where similar controls are in place i s listed in Category 4-A defined as ‘a TMDL is complete but insufficient data exists to determine that attainment has been2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 25 

### achieved’? Both rivers should be treated in a cons istent manner and be listed in Category 4-B.



## MDEP Response:

The Penobscot River segments in question were moved from Category 5-A in the 2010 Integrated Report to Category 4-B in the 2012 draft report based on new wasteload allocations (WLAs) and permits with new p hosphorus limits issued in May 2011. These delistings were based on water quality survey data from 1997, 2001, and 2007, as explained in the DEP’s WLA modeling report , and re-issuance of the relevant permits occurred early enough in the 2012 report pr eparation to allow incorporation of the changes. The Androscoggin River segment in ques tion (ME0104000208_424R_01, Androscoggin R, Main stem, u pstream of the Gulf Island Dam) was listed in the 2012 draft report in Categor y 4-A, already delisted from Category 5-A in 2006 due to a 2005 TMDL and a 2010 TMDL modification. MPDES permits establishing effluent limits for the mills were issued in 2012, i.e. considerably beyond the time frame covered by the 2012 Integrate d Report, and were thus initially not used for the 2012 report. However, DEP has now moved this listing to Category 4-B based on the 2012 permits.



# A NDROSCOGGIN 

# R IVER 

# G ULF 

# I SLAND 

# P OND 

# I MPAIRMENTS

Paraphrased comments from:

• Scott Reed, Rumford Paper Company

• Ken Gallant, Verso Paper Corporation

The Androscoggin River Gulf Island Pond (GIP) segme nt is still listed as impaired for algae blooms, BOD, phosphorus and TSS. According t o the DEP’s 2010 Gulf Island Pond Monitoring Program Report “‘No algal blooms we re observed in 2010, and based on monitoring data obtained annually since 20 04, the Department finds that water quality in GIP is suitable for the designated use of recreation in and on the water.” This segment should no longer be listed as impaired for these causes.



## MDEP Response:

DEP is moving this listing to Category 4-B in the c urrent cycle and will re-evaluate it in the 2014 reporting cycle based on available data. Note that the 2010 GIP Monitoring Program Report was not officially released until 20 12 and therefore the data were not used for the 2012 Integrated Report.2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 26 

# A NDROSCOGGIN 

# R IVER 

# G ULF 

# I SLAND 

# P OND 

# DO I MPAIRMENT

Paraphrased comments from:

• Scott Reed, Rumford Paper Company

In the first paragraph on page 74, the last two sen tences should be revised as follows: “... Consequently, the water quality has been improve d. While water quality still does not meet dissolved oxygen standards due to sediment oxygen demand from historic discharges and non-point sources, the new permits a nd certification in conjunction with expected reductions in non-point source loadin gs are expected to result in attainment within the permit period.”



## MDEP Response:

Non-point sources are not considered to be a signif icant contributor to non-attainment of dissolved oxygen criteria. As stated in the Gul f Island Pond TMDL there are limited opportunities for non-point source controls within this watershed that would be significant enough to make a difference in phosphor us loading during the summer

season when non-attainment conditions occur in the pond. Hence control of non-point source pollution is not a feasible solution to addr ess the non-attainment of DO criteria attributable to sediment oxygen demand.



# C ATEGORY FOR 

# D IOXIN 

# L ISTINGS 

# (2 COMMENTS 

# )

Paraphrased comment from:

• William Taylor, Pierce Atwood LLP

Is 4-B the correct category for waters affected by dioxin if no discharge is present?



## MDEP Response:

The 1997 ‘Dioxin law’ at 38 MRSA §420(2)(I) prohibi ted discharge of dioxin from bleach kraft pulp mills after December 31, 2002. E vidence of a discharge was that concentrations of 2, 3, 7, 8-tetrachlorodibenzo-p-f uran and 2, 3, 7, 8- tetrachlorodibenzo-p-dioxin were above nominal dete ction limits in bleach plant
effluent and that levels of dioxin, as defined in section 420-B, subsection 1-A, paragraph A detected in fish tissue sampled below t he mill's wastewater outfall are higher than levels in fish tissue sampled at an ups tream reference site not affected by the mill's discharge or on the basis of a comparabl e surrogate procedure acceptable to the commissioner (above/below or A/B test). The Dep artment required the mills to pass the A/B test for two consecutive years. The D epartment determined that the pulp and paper mills passed the A/B test and were no lon ger discharging measurable levels dioxins in the Androscoggin River and Kenneb ec River by 2004 and in the Penobscot River by 2005. Nevertheless, a residual amount of dioxin remains in some rivers from historical discharges, elevated enough to warrant Fish Consumption Advisories. The existence of Fish Consumption Adv isories constitutes nonattainment of the designated use of ‘fishing’ in th e Water Quality Standards for these rivers. Monitoring demonstrates that concentration s in fish are declining and in time it is expected that concentrations will be low enough to no longer require the Fish Consumption advisories. Therefore, these waters ar e appropriately listed in Category2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 27 

### 4-B: Rivers and Streams Impaired by Pollutants - Po llution Control Requirements Reasonably Expected to Result in Attainment.

Paraphrased comment from:

• Scott Reed, Rumford Paper Company

Under Listing Causes, Stressors and Sources of Impa irment, the section ‘Causes (Table 4-10)’ identifies that the greatest number o f impaired miles is due to toxic contamination, including legacy pollutants such as DDT, dioxin and PCBs. River miles impaired by PCBs are listed in Category 5-D ‘Legacy Pollutants’ while river miles impaired by dioxins are listed in Category 4-B, but should be changed to Category 5-

D.

Also in the same section is the following sentence: “While absolute elimination of the production of dioxin from the pulp and paper bleach ing process has probably not been accomplished, measureable differences above and bel ow sources of dioxin are no longer detectable.” Since there are no longer any measureable differences above and below mills, the first part of the sentence should be deleted.



## MDEP response:

Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were widely used a s dielectric and coolant fluids, for example in transformers, capacitors, and electric m otors all over the United States. PCB emissions, followed by long-range transport and atmospheric deposition, is thought to be a significant source of PCBs to water s of the US. Due to PCBs' environmental toxicity and classification as a pers istent organic pollutant, PCB production was banned by the United States Congress in 1979. Consequently,

concentrations in the environment have declined to some extent since then, but residuals remain a legacy of historical emissions. Concentrations of PCBs in some

Maine rivers exceed or contribute to an exceedance of the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s (Me-CDC) Fish Tissue Actio n Level (FTAL), resulting in a Fish Consumption Advisory. Specific Maine sources of PCBs to fish in the state’s

rivers are not well known or controlled and thus th ese rivers are listed in Category 5-D: Rivers and Stream Impaired by Legacy Pollutants. T o the contrary, sources of significant amounts of dioxins in fish from Maine r ivers were relatively well known to be discharges from certain industrial facilities. Institution of controls has resulted in elimination of the discharge of measurable levels o f dioxins, yet residuals persist due to historical discharges to an extent that the Fish Consumption Advisories remain. Consequently the affected river reaches are listed in Category 4-B: Rivers and Streams Impaired by Pollutants - Pollution Control Requirements Reasonably Expected to Result in Attainment.

Given that the Department has found that there is n o measureable discharge of dioxin from bleached kraft pulp mills in Maine, the phrase ‘ While absolute elimination of the production of dioxin from the pulp and paper bleach ing process has probably not been accomplished,’ has been deleted.2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 28 

# D IOXIN 

# I MPAIRMENT IN 

# P ENOBSCOT 

# R IVER

Comment from:

• Dennis McComb, Lincoln Paper and Tissue, LLC

The segment of the Penobscot River from Cambolassee Stream to the Piscataquis River is listed in Category 4-B for dioxin. Given the existing dioxin monitoring results

in fish tissue for dioxin as defined in state statu te, 38 MRSA§ 420-B1-A, it is our understanding that the levels of dioxin did not exc eed the FTAL. A separate listing for PCBs may be warranted but PCBs are not dioxin.



## MDEP Response:

Concentrations of dioxin alone in fish from the Pen obscot River in the reach from Cambolasse Stream to the Piscataquis River are belo w the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention’s (Me-CDC) Fish Tissue Actio n Level (FTAL) for dioxin-like compounds, which include dioxins and dioxin-like co planar PCBs. However, when combining concentrations of dioxins with concentrat ions of dioxin-like coplanar PCBs, the FTAL for dioxin-like compounds is exceeded. Be cause both dioxins and PCBs contribute to this exceedance, the segment in quest ion is listed in Category 4-B for
dioxins, for which local sources have been identifi ed and controlled, and in Category 5-D for PCBs, which are considered to be primarily a legacy of unknown, regional or

national historical sources.



# M ERCURY VERSUS 

# D IOXIN 

# /PCB IMPAIRMENT

Paraphrased comments from:

• Scott Reed, Rumford Paper Company

• William Taylor, Pierce Atwood LLP

• Kenneth Gallant, Verso Paper Corporation

Under Main Stem of Major Rivers it is noted that th e primary impairment on larger rivers is non-attainment of the fish consumption us e due to legacy PCBs and dioxin in fish tissue. Why is there is no mention of mercury in fish tissue even though there is a state-wide fish consumption advisory for it?



## MDEP Response:

The primary impairment issue for large rivers is le gacy dioxins and PCBs because they result in fish consumption advisories more str ingent than the statewide mercury advisory for most of the freshwater fish consumed. To indicate the existence of a mercury impairment, we have however inserted a foot note in the paragraph in question.2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 29 

# M ERCURY VERSUS 

# D IOXIN 

# /PCB A DVISORY

Comment from:

• William Taylor, Pierce Atwood LLP

Essentially, the dioxin & coplanar PCB concentratio ns are dropping toward, or are at, background, while mercury remains elevated. Therefo re, the state-wide mercury advisory is, in most or all cases, protective of di oxin and coplanar PCB exposure. This fact is alluded to in the advisory shown on page 13 5 of the draft document, but it could

be made more clear in the text.



## MDEP response:

The Maine Department of Human Services Guidelines a bout Eating Freshwater Fish was carefully worded to convey the desired message and needs to be read in its entirety. The statewide mercury advisory is prote ctive of dioxin and coplanar PCB exposure only for “ Pregnant and nursing women, women who may get pregn ant, and children under age 8 ” who eat freshwater fish that are not brook trout and landlocked salmon. For this population who eat tro ut and salmon and for “ All other

adults and children older than 8 ”, dioxin and coplanar PCB exposure is not protected by the statewide mercury advisory, but in fact requires the river specific
advisories, which are more restrictive.



# D IOXIN VERSUS 

# PCB IN 

# F ISH 

# T ISSUE 

# A CTION 

# L EVEL

Paraphrased comment:

• William Taylor, Pierce Atwood LLP

• Dennis McComb, Lincoln Paper and Tissue, LLC

It appears that dioxin-like coplanar PCBs are added to dioxins; please clarify if dioxins

included PCBs in 2009 and 2010.



## MDEP Response:

Dioxins refer to dioxins only, and PCBs refer to PC Bs only. When coplanar PCBs are measured they are explicitly described as such. Th e 2009 PCB data were for total PCBs; no dioxins were measured in 2009.



# C ONSENT 

# A GREEMENT ON 

# P ENOBSCOT 

# R IVER

Paraphrased comment from:

• William Taylor, Pierce Atwood LLP

The Penobscot River section of ‘Main Stems of Major Rivers’ incorrectly references ‘upstream mills’ that were involved in the Administ rative Consent Agreement when only one mill was involved. Also, since subsequent specific permit limitations for nutrients are the key factor expected to ensure con tinued aquatic life attainment, the reference to the Consent Agreement is outdated and unnecessary.2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 30 

## MDEP Response:

Information on the Consent Agreement was included t o provide historical context and has therefore been retained. The reference to ‘ups tream mills’ was indeed incorrect and has been updated to read ‘one upstream mill’.



# D ISSOLVED 

# O XYGEN 

# D ATA ON 

# P ENOBSCOT 

# R IVER

Paraphrased comment from:

• Dennis McComb, Lincoln Paper and Tissue, LLC

Has analysis of 2012 dissolved oxygen (DO) data for two critical reaches of the

Penobscot River been finalized? If DO criteria wer e attained in 2011 and 2012, the segments should not be assumed to be in non-attainm ent.



## MDEP Response:

The final data report has not been released and the refore the analysis results are still in preliminary form. To conclusively establish tha t DO criteria are attained, data indicating such attainment and/or other indicators of attainment must be measured for more than two years. If the segments in question s how continued DO criteria attainment, DEP will initiate a delisting for this cause in a future reporting cycle.



# T HE 

# N EED TO 

# S WIFTLY 

# A DOPT 

# M AINE 

# ’ S 

# N UTRIENT 

# R ULE

Paraphrased comment from:

• Ivy Frignoca, Conservation Law Foundation

A review of the appendix containing the rivers and streams listed in Categories 3 through 5 reveals that a large percentage of segmen ts has impairments related to nutrient loading. This review mandates the conclus ion that nutrient loading is a major cause of water pollution in Maine. We request an u pdate in the Integrated Report on

the status of the freshwater nutrient criteria bein g developed by DEP and the impact they will have on permits and the cleanup of nutrie nt-impaired segments.



## MDEP Response:

There has been no change in the status of Chapter 5 83: Nutrient Criteria for Surface

Waters since the release of the DRAFT Integrated Report. For the current status of the nutrient criteria please visit the following we bsite: http://www.maine.gov/dep/water/nutrient-criteria/in dex.html.



# M C 

# C AIN 

# F OODS 

# MEPDES P ERMIT

Paraphrased comment from:

• Ivy Frignoca, Conservation Law Foundation

CLF requests that the comments section for the Cate gory 3 Aroostook River segment (ME0101000413_148R, Main stem between confluence wi th Presque Isle Stream and 3 miles upstream of Caribou water supply intake) be revised to reflect the status of the2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 31 

### nutrient rule and the pending MEPDES permit for McC ain Foods and detail a timeline for implementation of both.



## MDEP Response:

DEP is actively working on data analysis that will form the basis for the MEPDES permit renewal for McCain Foods. Information on th e status of the nutrient rule is provided in the report in Chapter 4, section ‘Data Interpretation’, as well as the website provided above; this information is not repeated in comments to individual assessment units listed in the appendices for the sake of brev ity and to avoid redundancy.



# T OXIC 

# I MPACTS TO 

# M ARINE 

# W ATERS

Comment from:

• Scott Reed, Rumford Paper Company

Page 90 Toxics- Delete the sentence that states, “I ndustrial point sources have been “the largest contributing source category for dioxi n”.

• William Taylor, Pierce Atwood LLP

There is a general description of toxic impacts to marine waters on page 90. The general description is confusing because it is not clear which toxics are actually impairing marine waters. Is it PCBs, dioxins or a c ombination thereof? The statement is made that industrial point sources have been “th e largest contributing source category for dioxin” and “account for most of the s hellfish consumption listed waters.” DEP supplies no evidence to support these statement s. In fact, DEP acknowledges later in the same paragraph that pulp and paper mil ls are no longer discharging

measurable amounts of dioxin. It is not clear what other industrial loads are contributing to dioxin levels in marine waters and whether there are levels of dioxin, as
defined under state law, that exceed FTALs in marin e waters. Is an “elevated” level of

dioxin the same as a level above the FTAL?



## MDEP Response:

There has been a lobster tomalley consumption advis ory for all marine waters in place

since 1994 due to dioxins and PCBs. Data from 1993 -1996 show that dioxins were highest in lobsters captured in estuaries of rivers with bleached kraft pulp mills, consistent with freshwater fish data, while PCBs ar e higher along the Southern Maine

coast than Downeast. More recent data from 2010 co nfirm that dioxin levels remain higher in lobsters from the same estuaries (see pag e 99). Regarding the statement noted by the commenters, we have amended the senten ce to read ”Industrial point

sources have historically been the largest contributing source category for dioxin.” ‘Elevated’ means higher than expected in natural ba ckground, which may or may not

exceed the FTAL.2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 32 

# G REAT 

# B AY 

# E STUARY 

# I MPAIRMENTS

Paraphrased comment from:

• Ivy Frignoca, Conservation Law Foundation

CLF strongly supports Maine DEP’s listing of the Pi scataqua River Estuary segment (ID 812-2) under Category 5 for Marine Life Use Sup port impairment with a cause of nutrient/eutrophication biological indicators. Wit h respect to the Portsmouth Harbor segment (ID 812-3) of the estuary, however, CLF dis agrees with Maine DEP’s Category 3 designation; instead, this segment shoul d be listed in Category 5 due to the documented loss of eelgrass cover and therefore loss of critical habitat. This segment must be listed unless the state can demonst rate that no pollutant(s) causes or contribute to the impairment.



## MDEP Response:

As MDEP has acknowledged, eelgrass has declined in the segment in question. In response to this comment, and based on additional d ata review, MDEP has moved the segment to Category 5-A.

Paraphrased comment received during second official public comment period from:

• Ivy Frignoca, Conservation Law Foundation

• Thomas Irwin, Conservation Law Foundation

For the reasons set forth in our comments of May 10 , 2013, CLF strongly supports Maine DEP’s recently announced change to its DRAFT report. We commend Maine DEP for making this change and fully support its in corporation into the FINAL 2012 Integrated Monitoring and Assessment Report.



# O VERBOARD 

# D ISCHARGE REMOVALS

Paraphrased comment from:

• William Johnson, Maine Department of Environmenta l Protection, Division of Water Quality Management

The Category 2 listings for licensed Overboard Disc harge (OBD) septic systems in marine and estuarine waters should be updated to re flect OBDs that have been

removed.



## MDEP Response:

The Department updated OBD comments in Category 2 f or Estuarine and Marine Waters based on commenter-provided removal dates ex tending through the end of the assessment period. The Department subsequently sol icited from the Maine Department of Marine Resources (DMR) updates to the “Reason for DMR Closure” column for those Segment Descriptions where OBD sta tus had been updated since the draft 2012 report was distributed for public co mments. Based on the DMR response, the Department revised the “Reason for DM R Closure” descriptions for

status and/or closure reason. As of the end of the 2012 report assessment period, marine OBDs had been removed in 22 segments as comp ared to information2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 33 

### presented within the 2010 report. These 22 OBD rem ovals corresponded with the opening of five DMR Areas for shellfish harvest. F or the next listing cycle, the Department intends to have revised assessment units for marine and estuarine waters, and will align these units with DMR closure areas as much as possible. At that time, the Department will collaborate with the DMR to reevaluate proper listing

status for those shellfish harvest areas that remai n closed due to total coliform bacteria or specified indicator organisms.



# C ENTER FOR 

# B IOLOGICAL 

# D IVERSITY 

# I NPUT

Paraphrased comment from:

• William Taylor, Pierce Atwood LLP

Was the Center for Biological Diversity provided a copy of the draft report prior to other members of the public?



## MDEP Response:

The Center for Biological Diversity (CBD) was not p rovided a copy of the draft 2012 report prior to other members of the public. The C BD listing request, dated December 22, 2011, was submitted to the DEP during the 2012 Integrated Report data solicitation period, not the public comment period, to enable the DEP to consider the information and references therein when preparing t he 2012 303(d) list for marine waters. The CBD letter can be made available by th e DEP upon request.



# M ARINE 

# W ATERS IN 

# T ABLE 

# 2-1

Paraphrased comment from:

• William Taylor, Pierce Atwood LLP

In Table 2-1, under Category 2, Marine Waters, the percent change between 2010 and 2012 is noted as minus 0.80. Yet the change in acreage is an increase of 3,239. Should the percent change be plus 0.80? This quest ion applies for both Category 2 (acreage and square miles) calculations.



## MDEP Response:

The negative value is correct. While the area of C ategory 2 waters increased slightly in 2012 (by ~0.2 %), the areas of Category 4 and 5 waters increased more substantially (by 13.1 and 71.5 %, respectively). As a result, those two categories make up a larger percentage of the total assessed w aters in 2012 (6.21 % combined) compared to 2010 (5.5 %) causing the Category 2 per centage to decline somewhat (from 94.35 % in 2010 to 93.55 % in 2012), in spite of a small increase in area. We have added an explanatory footnote (#4) to the -0.8 0 % values in Table 2-1.2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 34 

# R ESIDUAL 

# D ESIGNATION 

# A UTHORITY TO 

# S UPPLEMENT THE 

# IC TMDL

Paraphrased comment from:

• Ivy Frignoca, Conservation Law Foundation

CLF supports DEP’s use of the IC Method but advocat es – as it did in its comments to

the Draft IC-TMDL - that DEP also exercise Residual Designation Authority (RDA) where appropriate to reduce the impacts of urban ru noff. . . . To the extent that RDA authority can be used to minimize runoff from some of the point sources identified like storm drains or to define a category of sites that could be subject to a general permit, similar to the approach utilized for Long Creek but on a smaller scale, DEP should exercise RDA and move the stream segment to Categor y 4B to regulate the improvement of water quality.



## MDEP Response:

The 2012 Integrated Report lists the streams that w ere included in the Department’s approved Impervious Cover TMDL. With the TMDL for these impaired waters completed, the focus will next shift to implementat ion, which in many cases will necessitate the preparation of a watershed manageme nt plan to develop more specific actions to implement the targets identified in the TMDL (or to adjust them). Use of Residual Designation Authority would be one of seve ral tools that could then be used to implement the plan. However, implementation mea sures are beyond the scope of what is included in the IR, so no changes have been made to it based on this

comment.



# I MPERVIOUS 

# C OVER 

# TMDL AND 

# P UBLIC 

# R EVIEW 

# P ROCESS

Paraphrased comments from:

• John Branscom, MTA (Maine Turnpike Authority)

• Tamara Lee Pinard, Interlocal Stormwater Working G roup

During the stakeholder involvement period that was part of the process to develop the IC TMDL, many communities questioned why their stre ams were being included in the IC TMDL. DEP staff responded that the time to provi de comment on 303(d) listing would be during the public comment period of the 20 12 Integrated Water Quality Report (Report). However, notifications regarding the public comment period for the 2012 DRAFT IR did not reach all parties interested in providing comments (specifically MTA and stakeholders affected by the IC TMDL) in a timely fashion. We request a 30- day extension of the comment period.



## MDEP Response:

DEP publicized the 30-day public comment period in a variety of ways as detailed in the report. Specifically, an e-mail regarding the public comment period was e-mailed

to the Executive Director of the MTA as well as off icials from all cities/towns (except for one) that form part of ISWG on April 10. DEP p rovided sufficient time for public comment and cannot extend (re-open) the public comm ent period.2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 35 

# IC TMDL A UTHORITY

Paraphrased comment from:

• William Taylor, Pierce Atwood LLP

Regarding the percent impervious cover TMDL that af fected 30 impaired segments, does the state of Maine or EPA have the authority t o develop and approve TMDLs that are based on a non-pollutant such as impervious cov er?



## MDEP Response:

This question is outside the scope of the Integrate d Report. The report merely lists the waters that were included in the EPA-approved T MDL and as a result moved from one report category to another report category.



# D ELISTING 

# P ROCESS

Paraphrased comments from:

• John Branscom, Maine Turnpike Authority

• Tamara Lee Pinard, Interlocal Stormwater Working G roup

Please provide clarification on:

1) the delisting process (Category 5-A to 4-A) for assessment units (AUs) that are
included in a TMDL; 2) how additional assessment units (AUs) will be ad ded to the approved Impervious Cover (IC) TMDL; and 3) when and how the public would be notified of del istings (Category 5-A to 4-A) due to TMDL approval.



## MDEP Response:

1) Assessment units that are included in a TMDL rep ort are moved from Category 5- A to 4-A following EPA-approval of that report (see page 62 below, last bullet under the header ‘Delisting from an Impaired to an Unimpaired Category’). 2) For additional AUs that will be added to the app roved IC TMDL, DEP will go through the routine process of developing a TMDL re port, i.e. draft a TMDL document (in this case prepare the same type of str eam-specific appendix that was provided in the original IC TMDL document for e ach stream), meet with stakeholders, provide a public comment period, amen d the document as appropriate based on any input received, and submit the document to EPA for approval. 3) Once EPA has approved a TMDL, the relevant water body will be moved from Category 5-A to 4-A and this delisting action will be reflected in the next Integrated Report. Typically the DEP TMDL writer will notify the stakeholders who have been part of the public review process when a TMDL has b een approved. All approved TMDLs and supporting information can be found on DE P’s website at http://www.maine.gov/dep/water/monitoring/tmdl/tmdl 2.html

.2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 36 

# S TATEWIDE 

# NPS TMDL

Paraphrased comment from:

• John Branscom, MTA (Maine Turnpike Authority)

Please provide an explanation of the proposed state wide NPS TMDL in the forthcoming response to comments.



## MDEP Response:

The purpose of the TMDL, which is still in the deve lopment phase, is to address nonurbanized streams that do not attain water quality criteria due to nutrient enrichment. This TMDL uses the same approach as previously appr oved TMDLs for Dudley Brook and Prestile Stream, which can be found on the DEP website at http://www.maine.gov/dep/water/monitoring/tmdl/tmdl 2.html . Further details on the forthcoming TMDL will be provided during the period of public comment and
engagement.



# U SE OF 

# D ATA 

# O LDER THAN 

# 5 Y EARS

Paraphrased comment from:

• William Taylor, Pierce Atwood LLP

Does the Department use data older than 5 years for attainment/non-attainment

decisions? Is the use of such data consistent with the use of such data for other DEP permitting and licensing decisions?



## MDEP Response:

MDEP uses the latest available data to make (non-)a ttainment decisions in all categories; if necessary, that may include data old er than 5 years. Usage of older data is explained on pages 58-62. The approach use d for making (non-)attainment decisions for purposes of the Integrated Report is independent of that used for licensing/permitting decisions and hence does not n eed to be the same.



# BOD L ISTINGS

Paraphrased comment from:

• William Taylor, Pierce Atwood LLP

On what basis are waters listed for BOD impairment?



## MDEP Response:

Waters are listed for biochemical oxygen demand (BO D) when that indicator provides supporting information as one cause of dissolved ox ygen impairment. The BOD test is used for determining the relative oxygen require ments of municipal and industrial wastewaters. Application of the test to organic was te discharges allows calculation of the effect of the discharges on the dissolved oxyge n concentration of the receiving2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 37 

### water. In addition, BOD may also be used as an inpu t parameter in water quality models whose use is explained under ‘Dissolved Oxyg en’ on page 66, below.



# C LASS 

# AA AND 

# A B IOLOGICAL 

# E XPECTATIONS

Paraphrased comment from:

• William Taylor, Pierce Atwood LLP

The description of the biological monitoring of riv ers and streams notes that Class AA and Class A waters have the same aquatic life crite ria and biological expectations. The aquatic life criteria listed under Class AA and Class A are not the same because Class A has a specific numeric criterion for dissol ved oxygen whereas Class AA has a

narrative criterion.



## MDEP response:

For Class AA (MRSA 38, section 465.1.B.), aquatic l ife and dissolved oxygen (DO) both ‘shall be as naturally occurs’. For Class A ( MRSA 38, section 465.2.A. and 465.2.B.), aquatic life and DO are treated separate ly: as in Class AA, aquatic life ‘shall be as naturally occurs’ but, in contrast to Class A A, there are specific criteria for DO in Class A. Since the text questioned by the commente r only addresses aquatic life
criteria, which are the same in both classes, no ch anges were made to the text.



# N ARRATIVE 

# A QUATIC 

# L IFE 

# C RITERIA AND 

# C HAPTER 

# 579

Paraphrased comment from:

• William Taylor, Pierce Atwood LLP

Under Aquatic Life Monitoring, Biological Monitorin g of Rivers and Streams, it is noted that a Department biologist determined attainment o f narrative aquatic life criteria using expert judgment to evaluate structure and fun ction of the stream algal and

wetland macroinvertebrate communities. It is also noted that Chapter 579 will be amended to include models following standard public review protocols after they have been adequately tested. Should attainment determin ations and categorizations for stream algal and macroinvertebrate communities not be deferred until after public review and proper adoption of amendments to Chapter 579?



## MDEP response:

Regarding determination of aquatic life criteria fo r stream algae and wetland macroinvertebrates, we further clarify that for the 2012 report department biologists have made expert judgment determinations based on i nterpretation of statutory narrative criteria already contained in the Water C lassification Program and not based on Chapter 579 rules. Expert judgment determinatio ns are informed by biological data
and metrics, taxa tolerance values and other auteco logical information, including statistical modeling. DEP biologists evaluate biol ogical monitoring data to identify detrimental changes in community structure and func tion compared with natural systems. The text of the section in question (pages 84-85, below) has been updated to

reflect this clarification.2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 38 

# B IOLOGICAL 

# C ONDITION 

# G RADIENT

Paraphrased comment from:

• William Taylor, Pierce Atwood LLP

Please provide a citation to a Maine water quality standard which directs that biological conditions be at a specific tier on the biological condition gradient as suggested in the section ‘Water Classification Prog ram’.



## MDEP Response:

The language provided in the section in question wa s misleading - the Biological Condition Gradient (BCG) is not included in Maine’s water quality standards. We have updated the text to remove the reference to the BCG (page 75, below).



# P ERIODIC 

# R EVIEW OF 

# W ATER 

# Q UALITY 

# C LASSIFICATION 

# S YSTEM AND


# R ELATED 

# S TANDARDS

Paraphrased comment from:

• William Taylor, Pierce Atwood LLP

Has the Department conducted a triennial review per Maine statute since 2009?



## MDEP Response:

In keeping with Maine’s statutory requirement to re view the water quality classification system and related standards from time to time, but at least once every three years, one waterbody (lower Kennebec River) was reclassifi ed in 2011 and ambient water quality criteria (human health criteria for inorgan ic arsenic, acrolein and phenol; aquatic life criteria for acrolein, diazanon, nonyl phenol) as included in Chapter 584, Surface Water Quality Criteria for Toxic Pollutants were revised or expanded in 2012. Public hearings were held for both items. For adde d clarification of the statute, we have updated the report language in question (page 76, below); we also noted the revisions made in 2011 and 2012 in the report.



# R EPLACEMENT OF THE 

# HUC S YSTEM WITH THE 

# WBD S YSTEM

Paraphrased comment from:

• William Taylor, Pierce Atwood LLP

It is noted that approximately half of the HUCs (Hy drologic Unit Codes) used in the 2012 draft report were altered or eliminated. Why were only half, and not all, HUCs

converted?



## MDEP Response:

For informational purposes, DEP noted in the 2012 I ntegrated Report that, because of the USGS’ (U.S. Geologic Survey) conversion from HU C to WBD (Watershed Boundary Dataset), a mismatch now exists between so me HUCs used in the draft IR and current WBDs (former HUCs). Since DEP has no o bligation to change its AU2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 39 

### coding system for listing purposes from the establi shed HUC system to the new USGS WBD, none of the HUCs used in the assessment unit c oding in the 2012 draft report were altered. The text in the report has been updat ed and clarified (pages 5 and 58, below; footnote to first HUC map of appendices).



# S ANDY 

# R IVER AND 

# L OWER 

# A NDROSCOGGIN 

# R IVER

Paraphrased comment from:

• Scott Reed, Rumford Paper Company

Under Mainstem of Major Rivers, what are the ‘other issues’ on the Sandy River and lower Androscoggin River and the ‘variety of reason s’ cited for re-scheduling monitoring?



## MDEP Response:

Other issues include a relocation of the Farmington POTW outfall and proposed upgrade of the lower Androscoggin River. The reaso ns include high river flows in 2009 and scheduling conflicts which prevented monit oring on the lower Androscoggin River and Sandy River.



# M ERCURY 

# M ETHOD

Paraphrased comment from:

• William Taylor, Pierce Atwood LLP

Is the new Direct Mercury Analyzer method mentioned under the 2010 Surface Water Ambient Toxics monitoring program for lake fish sam ples an EPA approved test

method?



## MDEP Response:

Yes, the method is EPA-approved, it is EPA method 7 473, Mercury in Solids and Solutions by Thermal Decomposition, Amalgamation, a nd Atomic Absorption Spectrophotometry. The report was updated to inclu de that information.2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 40 

# C HAPTER 

# 3 B ACKGROUND



# S TATE 

# A TLAS AND 

# W ATER 

# Q UALITY 

# S TANDARDS

Contact: Vicki Schmidt, DEP BLWQ, Division of Envi ronmental Assessment (DEA) Tel: (207) 485-1482 email: vicki.l.schmidt@maine.gov

The State of Maine has a total surface area of over 35,000 square miles, the most in New England; with terrestrial land occupying almost 31,000 square miles and the larger surface waters occupying nearly 4,500 square miles. With a population of approximately 1.3 million people, Maine also is the least densely populated state in New England. The majority of Maine’s population is concentrated in the southern and coastal portions of the State, and along both sides of Interstate 95 south of Bangor. Due to these geographical characteristics, regional population densities vary considerably from the state's average population de nsity.

Maine’s 5,780 lakes and ponds that are tracked in t he ADB cover 986,952 acres, an area that is larger than the State of Rhode Island. There are over 7,000 perennial brooks, streams and rivers in Maine, ranging in len gth from less than two miles to nearly 200 miles, with an estimated total length of 53,456 miles.

Since 2009 Maine has been developing hydrography an d GIS related water programs in compliment with the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD). NHD has significantly increased our accuracy for measuring and categorizi ng our coastline, rivers, streams, lakes and ponds. In addition, access to modern and updated high resolution aerial photography has also increased Maine’s ability to b etter determine land use and both human and natural changes to our state’s terrestria l conditions.

New to our 2012 State Atlas & Water Quality Standar ds information are statistical results from the 2007 Census of Agriculture (United States Department of Agriculture). This survey reports a total of 2,105 square miles o f land in agricultural production. This is approximately 6.8% of the total land area o f the State of Maine. Of these 2,105 square miles, 32.3% are in croplands, 49.4% in fore sted wood and pastureland, 11.2% in pasture land, and 7.10% in buildings, roads, and wasteland. In addition, surveys of organic agriculture in Maine show a 20% increase in organic production; from 39,140 acres in 2007 to 48,948 acres in 2008 ( http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/statefact-sheets/state-data.aspx?StateFIPS=23&StateName= Maine ).

Table 3-1 The 2012 Integrated Report State of Maine Atlas

Population or Natural Resource Category Value Reported

for 2012 1 

### Percent Value Reported in

2010 2

State Population 2010 National Census Data 1,328,361 100.0% 1,321,505

Rural 552, 638 Urban 775,723

Total State Area (square miles) 3 35,236.4 100.0% 35,236.4

Total Fields (square miles) 3 1,546.5 4.4% 1,546.5

Blueberry Fields 100.9 0.3% 100.9

Grassland / Herbaceous 57.9 0.2% 57.92012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 41 Pastureland / Hayland 644.8 1.8% 644.8

Cultivated Crops 742.9 2.1% 742.9 Total Land in Agricultural Production (square miles) 4 2,105 Not reported

Farmland in conservation wetland or reserve program s 51,268 Not reported

Organic Certified crops, pasture, & rangeland 48,984 Not reported

Total Forest (square miles) 3 24,666.9 70.0% 24,666.9

Recent Clearcut 163.6 0.5% 163.6

Regenerating Forest (Post 1995) 720.3 2.0% 720.3

Light Partial Cut (Post 1995) 2,285.1 6.5% 2,285.1

Heavy Partial Cut (Post 1995) 1,199.9 3.4% 1,199.9

Deciduous Forest 4,745.5 13.5% 4,745.5

Mixed Forest 8,899.4 25.3% 8,899.4

Evergreen Forest 6,653.0 18.9% 6,653.0

Total Scrub-Shrub (square miles) 3 1,186.4 3.4% 1,186.4

Total Wetlands (square miles) 3 2,376.9 6.7% 2,376.9

Wetlands 816.1 2.3% 816.1

Forested Wetland 1,560.8 4.4% 1,560.8

Total Open Water Surface Area (square miles) 3 4,210.7 11.9% 4,210.7

Total Saltwater Surface Area (square miles) not reported n/a not reported

Total Unconsolidated Earth-Material Shorelines (squ are miles) 3 225.3 0.6% 225.3

Total Developed Lands and Paved Ways (square miles) 3 972.0 2.8% 972.0

Developed - Open Space 175.1 0.5% 175.1

Developed - Low Intensity 169.1 0.5% 169.1

Developed - Med Intensity 95.4 0.3% 95.4

Developed - High Intensity 98.5 0.3% 98.5

Road / Runway 433.9 1.2% 433.9

Total Alpine / Tundra (square miles) 3 10.3 0.0% 10.3

Total Bare Ground (square miles) 3 41.5 0.1% 41.5

Total Miles of Coastline (including tidal rivers & shorelines of islands) 5 

### 2,756.6 100% 2,756.6

Total Miles of Border Coast, Lakes & Rivers Shared with CN and NH 6 338.9 100% 338.9

Maine – Canadian Border (coastal water miles out to the "3 mile" limit) 39.4 12% 39.4

Maine – Canadian Border (lake miles) 33.0 10% 33.0

Maine – Canadian Border (river miles) 206.2 61% 206.2

Maine – Canadian Border (total water miles) 6 278.6 82% 278.6

Maine – Canadian Border (total land and water miles ) 608.7 N/A 608.7

Maine – New Hampshire Border (coastal water miles o ut to the "3 mile" limit) 17.3 5% 17.3

Maine – New Hampshire Border (lake miles) 17.7 5% 17.7

Maine – New Hampshire Border (river miles) 25.4 7% 25.4

Maine – New Hampshire Border (total water miles) 6 60.3 18% 60.3

Maine – New Hampshire Border (total land and water miles) 188.8 N/A 188.8

Total Miles of Rivers and Streams in Maine 5 54,995 100% 53,455.8

Miles of perennial streams (subset) 30,894 56% 29,907

Miles of intermittent [non-perennial] streams (subs et) 16,375 30% 15,615

Miles of rivers (subset) 7726 14% 7933.82012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 42 Miles of Rivers and Streams by Water Class 6 

### Miles Percent Miles

Water Class Streams (% of Stream Miles) Ri vers (% of River Miles) Class Totals n/a Class T otals

Class AA 1,345 3.6% 1,093 20% 2,439 5.5% 2,518

Class A 17,403 45% 2,192 40% 19,594 44.6% 19,627

Class B 19,612 51% 1,728 32% 21,339 48.6% 22,038

Class C 138 0.4% 419 8% 558 1.3% 621

Totals 38,498 100% 5,432 100% 43,930 100% 44,804

Number & Area of Lakes, Ponds and Reservoirs (each line is a subset of the line above) Number Square Miles

Acres 

### Percent Number Square Miles

Acres

Total Lake, Pond & Reservoir Features in Maine DEP' s GIS Datalayer 5 32,257 1,603 mi 2

1,025,949 ac 100%

100%

100% 33,119

1,563 mi 2

1,000,320 ac

Lakes, Ponds & Reservoirs assigned a Midas Numbe r in DEP’s GIS 6 6,186
1,544 mi 2

988,508 ac 19%

96%

96% 5,780

1,542 mi 2

986,880 ac

Lakes, Ponds & Reservoirs assigned a Midas Nu mber tracked in ADB 7 5780
1,542 mi 2

986,952 ac 18%

96%

96% 5780

1,542 mi 2

986,952 ac

Significant Publicly Owned Lakes, Ponds & Reservoirs 2,314
1,477 mi 2

945,506 ac 7%

92%

92% 2,314

1,477 mi 2

945,506 ac

Total Area of Near Shore Waters and Tidal Rivers (s quare miles and acres) 7 2,846.1 1,821,473.9 2,846.1

Total Area of Bays, Estuaries and Harbors 2,717.3 1,739,051.0 2,717.3

Total Area of Tidal Rivers 128.8 82,422.9 128.8

Total Area of Near Shore Waters and Tidal Rivers by Water Class 6 Square Miles Acres Square Miles

SA 227 145,421 211.0

SB 2590 1,657,455 2,606.3

SC 28.8 18,417 28.8

Total Area of Wetlands 8 5,196 3,325,418 5,196

Total Area of Saltwater Wetlands 8 381.3 244,095 381.3

Estuarine 271.9 174,046 271.9

Marine 109.4 70,049 109.4

Total Area of Freshwater Wetlands 8 4,814.6 3,081,323 4,814.6

Lacustrine 1,486.6 951,408 1,486.6

Palustrine 3,172.6 2,030,484 3,172.6

Riverine 155.4 99,430 155.4

Total Area of Mapped Sand and Gravel Aquifers 6 1,281.0 794,624.0 1,281.0

1 These figures were the most current that were ava ilable to the DEP in 2012.

2. These figures were the most current that were av ailable to the DEP in early 2010.

3. Derived from the 2004 MeLCD (Maine LandCover Dat aset) that has a 25 square meter (5m X 5m) spatial resolution. 4. United States Department of Agriculture http://www.ers.usda.gov/data-products/state-fact-sh eets/state-data.aspx?StateFIPS=23&StateName=Maine 5. Derived from the National Hydrography Dataset (S ource: U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) and the U.S. E nvironmental Protection Agency (USEPA) 24K High
Resolution NHD, 2007. http://nhd.usgs.gov/index.html

. 6. Derived from MDEP's GIS hydrography, geology and state boundary datasets (Source: Digitized 1:24,00 0 USGS 7.5" Quadrangles and Digital Raster Graphics ). Significant Lakes are defined as publicly owned, ha ve bathymetric/morphometric surveys, vulnerability modeling was performed or some trophic data has bee n gathered. 7. Only Lakes, Ponds and Reservoirs with a MIDAS nu mber are tracked in the ADB.

8. Derived from the U.S Fish and Wildlife Service N ational Wetland Inventory (NWI) dataset – updated 5 /22/2009.2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 43 

# Water Quality Standards Program

Contact: Susanne K. Meidel, DEP BLWQ, Division of E nvironmental Assessment (DEA)

Tel: (207) 441-3612 email: Susanne.K.Meidel@maine.gov

Related Website: www.maine.gov/dep/water/monitoring/classification/i ndex.htm

The water quality of Maine is described in terms of physical, chemical and biological

characteristics associated with the state's water c lassification program. As established in Maine statute (38 MRSA Sections 464-470), the cl assification program consists of designated uses (e.g. drinking water supply, recrea tion in and on the water, habitat for fish and other aquatic life), criteria (e.g. bacter ia, dissolved oxygen and biological criteria), and an anti-degradation statement (e.g. natural, free flowing) that specify levels of water quality necessary to maintain the d esignated uses. All State waters have a classification assignment (Lakes: GPA. River s and streams: AA, A, B, C. Marine and estuarine: SA, SB, SC). Wetlands are c lassified the same as associated surface waters, i.e. wetlands that are part of grea t ponds or natural lakes and ponds less than 10 acres in size are GPA waters; all fres hwater wetlands not classified as GPA waters are class AA, A, B or C under Sections 4 67 and 468 according to the watershed in which they occur. Coastal wetlands ar e classified SA, SB or SC according to the provisions of Section 469 (Classif ication of Estuarine and Marine Waters). Groundwater is classified GW-A or GW-B ac cording to provisions of Section

465-B.

The classification program is reviewed every three years by the Department and the Board of Environmental Protection (BEP). The Department and the Board conducted a water classification review process in 2009 with th e result that the Maine State Legislature raised the water quality classification s (goals) for 16 rivers and streams and one marine waterbody. The BEP also recommended , and the Legislature approved, that changes be made to clarify the class ification of six other waterbody segments, and that a Use Attainability Analysis be conducted on one stream.



# H IGHLIGHTS FOR 

# P OINT 

# S OURCE 

# P OLLUTION 

# C ONTROL



# P ROGRAMS

Contact: Brian Kavanah, DEP BLWQ, Division of Water Quality Management (DWQM)

Tel: (207) 287-7700 email: Brian.W.Kavanah@maine.gov

Related Website: www.maine.gov/dep/water/wd/index.html

Maine uses multiple approaches to ensure that point source discharges of wastewater receive adequate treatment prior to their release t o waters of the State including: licensing, compliance inspections coupled with tech nical assistance in operations and maintenance, and enforcement where necessary. A num ber of financial assistance programs support new facility construction, elimina tion of discharges, as well as upgrades or additions to existing facilities. Highl ights for 2009 - 2010 for these programs are summarized below or referenced by link s to other documents.2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 44 

# Technical Assistance / Pollution Prevention Program

Contact: Sterling Pierce, DEP BLWQ, Division of Wat er Quality Management (DWQM)

Tel: (207) 287-4868 email: Sterling.Pierce@maine.gov

Related Website: http://www.maine.gov/dep/water/wwtreatment/

Department staff participate in both industrial and municipal based technical assistance and pollution prevention projects.

Highlights for 2009-2010

Technical Assistance was provided to the operators of over forty (40) POTWs and industrial direct dischargers by staff of the compl iance & technical assistance section of the Division of Water Quality Management. Techn ical assistance focused on improving compliance with MEPDES permit requirement s and maximizing the efficiency of treatment. In addition to direct ass istance at facilities, staff from the compliance and technical assistance section provide d more than 150 hours of formal classroom training to more than 350 wastewater oper ators throughout the state. Staff

of the section continued to oversee the electronic DMR system, which helps assure that effluent compliance data is reported in an acc urate and timely manner to the Department and EPA.



# C ONSTRUCTION OF 

# W ASTEWATER 

# T REATMENT 

# F ACILITIES

Contact: John True, DEP BLWQ, Division of Water Qua lity Management (DWQM)

Tel: (207) 287-7808 email: John.N.True@Maine.gov

Related Website: http://www.maine.gov/dep/water/grants/srfparag.html

Clean Water State Revolving Fund (CWSRF) and Maine Construction Grants Programs: CWSRF program monies are used to provide low-inter est loans (2% below market rates) to communities and sanitary dis tricts to upgrade wastewater

treatment facilities and to fund NPS low interest l oan programs for the repair/replacement of residential septic systems an d the purchase of environmentally friendly silviculture equipment. The program depend s on a yearly Federal Capitalization Grant which must be matched with 20% State funds. State construction grants help fund wastewater projects in communities where user charges are too high to borrow money.

Between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2011, the Maine DEP Construction Grants Program provided grants to 3 projects and th e CWSRF funded 49 projects, some with assistance from the United States Departm ent of Agriculture (USDA) Rural Development program grants/loans and Community Deve lopment Block Grant (CDBG) grant money. These projects included; new wa stewater treatment facilities and upgrades, additions, and modifications to them; sewer system improvements; abatement of combined sewer overflows; refinancing of existing wastewater loans; and the purchase of silviculture equipment; for a t otal cost of approximately $612,178 in State grants and $91,630,294 in CWSRF loans. $1 9,792,629 of the CWSRF loan amount was in the form of loan principal forgivenes s.2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 45 

# M AINE 

# C OMBINED 

# S EWER 

# O VERFLOW 

# P ROGRAM

Contact: David Breau, DEP BLWQ, Division of Water Q uality Management (DWQM)

Tel: (207) 287-7766 email: david.p.breau@maine.gov

Related Website: http://www.maine.gov/dep/water/cso/index.html

Thirty-two Maine communities are served by combined sewer systems, which convey a combination of sanitary and storm water flows to wastewater treatment facilities. During dry weather, all of the sewage in a combined system is conveyed to the treatment plant for adequate treatment. Howeve r, during rainstorms or snow-melt periods, storm water mixes with the sanitary sewage , causing flows that exceed the capacity of the sewer system. This results in comb ined sewer overflows (CSOs), which vary extensively in pollutant types, concentr ations and loads, as well as in volume of overflow and severity of impact to the re ceiving water bodies. Maine has established an aggressive program, coordinated with EPA's CSO program, to assist communities in evaluating the design, condition, ac tivity, and effects of combined sewer systems and overflows.

Highlights for 2009 - 2010

One Maine CSO community, Rockland, completed its CS O abatement project program since the last Integrated Report an d no longer has permitted CSOs.

Table 3-2 CSO Program Summary Statistics

Parameter End of Report

Year 2008 End of Report

Year 2010 Increase/(Decrease)

Number of CSO Communities 35 32 (3) or (8.5%)
Number of CSO Discharge Points 177 164 (13) or (7%)
Total of Annual Discharge Days for Communities 792 606 (186) or (23.5%)
Total Annual Volume of CSOs (Billion Gallons) 2.4 2.0 (0.4) or (16.7%)
Yearly Precipitation (Inches) 57 50 (7) or (12.3%)
Million Gallons Discharged per Inch of Yearly Precipitation (MG/Inch) 

### 42 40 (2) or (4.8%)



# S MALL 

# C OMMUNITY 

# F ACILITIES 

# P ROGRAM

Contact: Tim MacMillan, DEP BLWQ, Division of Water Quality Management (DWQM)

Tel: (207) 287-7765 email: Tim.A.Macmillan@maine.gov

Related Website: http://www.maine.gov/dep/water/grants/scgpara2.html

From its inception in 1982, the Small Community Gra nt Program (SCGP) has disbursed $26.0 million dollars in grant monies and is estimated to have cumulatively eliminated the discharge of over 1.3 million gallon s of untreated wastewater every day.

Although state bond issues usually fund this grant program, in the past it has also received some funding directly from state appropria tions. These funds have been used to assist municipalities with the construction of individual or cluster-type wastewater treatment systems that were designed to eliminate heavily polluted discharges from either already malfunctioning syste ms or non-existing system2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 46 

### ("straight pipes"). This amount of funding has res ulted in the construction of new

wastewater treatment facilities in over 300 communi ties throughout the state. The

total estimated value of the facilities built with Small Community Grants is approximately $31.3 million dollars.

Currently, requests for assistance outweigh availab le funding. Between 2010 and 2011, we disbursed grants totaling approximately $0 .7 million dollars to 61 communities to replace 96 systems as detailed below

.

Highlights 2010 - 2011

2010: 40 systems were replaced removing 10,800 gall ons of untreated discharges. 2011: 52 systems were replaced removin g 14,040 gallons of untreated discharges. Table 3-3 provides a summary of information about t he program on a year-by-year

basis.

Table 3-3 Yearly Summary of SCGP Activities

Year-by-Year Summary

Year Grant Amount

Disbursed Total Facility

Value Systems

Installed Wastewater

Treated (Gal/Day)*

1998 $1,145,088 $1,379,624 187 50,490

1999 $769,086 $926,610 122 32,940

2000 $1,370,528 $1,651,238 251 67,770

2001 $1,142,009 $1,375,914 167 45,090

2002 $1,354,130 $1,631,482 208 56,160

2003 $1,086,265 $1,308,753 183 49,410

2004 $795,327 $958,225 136 36,720

2005 $399,078 $480,817 64 17,280

2006 $587,517 $707,852 72 19,440

2007 $547,262 $637,039 66 17,820

2008 $293,961 $356,577 36 9,720

2009 $583,333 $718,440 61 16,470

2010 $321,913 $350,702 40 10,800

2011 $376,206 $531,140 52 14,040

Totals: $25,975,157 $31,331,828 4,930 1,331,100



### Please refer to page 32 of the 2006 Integrated Wate r Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report for further discussion of the Sma ll Community Grant Program and yearly summaries for years 1982-1997. http://www.maine.gov/dep/water/monitoring/305b/2006 /2006_Final_305b_Report.pdf2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 47 

# L ICENSING OF 

# W ASTEWATER 

# D ISCHARGES

Contact: Gregg Wood, DEP BLWQ, Division of Water Qu ality Management

Tel: (207) 287-7693 email: Gregg.Wood@maine.gov

Related Website: http://www.maine.gov/dep/water/wd/index.html

The Division of Water Quality Management is respons ible for the licensing and relicensing of all surface wastewater discharges, whe ther industrial, commercial, municipal or residential. In Maine, the vast major ity of wastewater discharge sources have previously been licensed. Therefore, the lice nsing program is focused largely upon renewal of existing licenses, rather than deve lopment of new licenses (Table 3-4).

Please refer to pages 32-33 of the 2006 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report for further discussion of Water D ischarge Licensing Program. http://www.maine.gov/dep/water/monitoring/305b/2006 /2006_Final_305b_Report.pdf

Table 3-4 Permitting/licensing by the Division of W ater Quality Management

Year 2009 2010

Permit Renewals 100 (32 POTW’s + 68 non-POTW’s) 58 (35 POTW’s + 23 non-POTW’s)
>2,000 gpd 1 OBD renewals as MEPDES permits 20 8

New permits 11 6

Minor Revisions/Modifications 36 22 <2,000 gpd 1 OBDs 457 451

Total permitting actions 624 545

1 Gallons per day



# O VERBOARD 

# D ISCHARGE 

# G RANT 

# P ROGRAM

Contact: Tim MacMillan, DEP BLWQ, Division of Water Quality Management (DWQM)

Tel: (207) 287-7765 email: Tim.A.Macmillan@maine.gov

As of December 31, 2011 Maine has 1,252 licensed ov erboard discharges (OBDs). OBDs are discharges of wastewater from ind ividual homeowners or businesses to surface waters (typically marine wate rs) where existing lots are unsuitable for subsurface disposal and no municipal system is available. OBDs typically lead to closures of shellfish growing and harvesting areas.

In 1989 an OBD Removal Grant Program was establishe d. The priorities of the grant program are to eliminate discharges that either cau se the closure of shell fishing areas or that create a public nuisance. Since the beginn ing of the program, approximately seven million dollars have been spent to remove 582 systems. The total acreage opened to shellfish harvesting since the start of t he OBD Grant Program is over 18,000 acres. According to the DMR, opening and fu lly utilizing this much shellfish harvesting area has the potential to generate an an nual harvest with a retail value of over $4.4 million dollars.2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 48 

### Highlights 2010 - 2011

A total of 82 OBD systems were removed in 2010 - 20 11. The Maine Department of

Marine Resources indicates that 141 acres of shellf ish habitat attributable to the OBD Grant Program may be re-opened to shellfish harvest ing in 2010 - 2011.

Please refer to pages 33-34 of the 2006 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report for further discussion of Water D ischarge Licensing Program. http://www.maine.gov/dep/water/monitoring/305b/2006 /2006_Final_305b_Report.pdf



# Compliance Evaluation

Contact: Sterling Pierce, DEP BLWQ, Division of Wat er Quality Management (DWQM)

Tel: (207) 287-4868 email: Sterling.Pierce@maine.gov

Related Website: http://www.maine.gov/dep/water/wd/municipal_industr ial/index.html

The Department uses a three-part program to evaluat e the compliance of wastewater treatment facilities. The compliance evaluation pr ogram involves on-site inspections of wastewater treatment facilities, occasional samp ling of their effluent quality on a selective basis, and monthly evaluation of the lice nsees' self-monitoring reports. Discharge licenses also require immediate reporting of any major malfunctions, bypasses or exceedances of license li mits to DEP inspectors.

Highlight for 2009 – 2010

During this two-year time period the compliance ins pectors from the compliance and technical assistance unit conducted 1027 inspection s at facilities located across the State. These inspections are conducted to verify t hat the treatment plant is operating in accordance with all of the requirements of their Maine Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (MEPDES) permit. Inspectors eva luate such aspects as laboratory analyses, data quality control, process control, operations and maintenance, collection systems operations & mainte nance, and overall plant maintenance. These inspections provide oversight e valuation of the license holders’ compliance with the license, but routinely uncover areas where training, assistance, or equipment upgrades could resolve an issue. DEP com pliance inspectors provide assistance as appropriate and can also direct the l icense holder to other forms of technical assistance provided by other DEP staff, o ther wastewater related agencies, or from private consulting firms. All of these eff orts in concert, combined with the efforts of the treatment plant management and opera tions staff, serve to preserve and protect the water quality of State of Maine’s water ways.



# Enforcement of Water Quality Laws

Contact: Brian Kavanah, DEP BLWQ, Division of Water Quality Management (DWQM)

Tel: (207) 287-7700 email: brian.w.kavanah@maine.gov

Related Website: http://www.maine.gov/dep/enforcement/

The general philosophy of the DEP, BLWQ is to gain compliance and resolve problems at the least formal level that is appropri ate, and to maximize the spirit of cooperation between the DEP and the regulated commu nity. By fostering voluntary compliance with Maine's water pollution control law s, the overall effectiveness of the enforcement program is maximized and unnecessary li tigation is avoided. Formal2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 49 

### enforcement actions are fact-dependent, but general ly become necessary when violations of environmental laws are severe enough to warrant action regardless of the
remediation effort, or when the violator is not res ponsive in preventing violations or refuses to cooperate with the DEP.

Highlights for 2009 - 2010

A total of 14 water discharge enforcement formal ca ses were settled in 2009 and 2010. The penalties collected provide a deterrent to violation of water quality laws and recover any economic benefit that may have been gai ned. Additionally, the enforcement actions also specified a variety of cor rective actions that will improve water quality such as: upgrades to wastewater treat ment facilities, elimination of discharges, and Supplemental Environmental Projects

.



# E XTENT OF 

# N ONPOINT 

# S OURCES OF 

# P OLLUTANTS AND 

# P ROGRAM



# R ECOMMENDATIONS



# The Maine NPS Water Pollution Control Program

Contact: Norm Marcotte, DEP BLWQ, Division of Water shed Management (DWM)

Tel: (207) 215-6277 email: norm.g.marcotte@maine.gov

Related Website: http://www.maine.gov/dep/land/watershed/nps/index.h tml

Maine's Nonpoint Source Water Pollution Management Program (38 M.R.S.A. §410-I) helps restore and protect water resources from NPS pollution. The basic objective of the NPS program is to promote the use of state agen cy-defined "best management practice guidelines" (BMPs) to prevent water pollut ion. The overall goals of the

program are:

• Clean Water. Prevent, control, or abate water pol lution caused by nonpoint

sources so that beneficial uses of water resources are maintained or restored and

waters meet or exceed their classification standard s.

• Using Best Management Practices. BMPs are widely used in all Maine’s watersheds to minimize polluted runoff. Maine BMP guidance manuals can be

found at http://www.maine.gov/dep/land/erosion/escbmps/index .html

• Locally Supported Watershed Stewardship. Local co mmunity awareness results in commitment to maintaining or improving the conditio n of local water resources through citizen action. Watershed stewardship meet s community needs and

maintains beneficial uses of local water resources.

• Compliance with Applicable Laws. Regulated activi ties comply with existing State

and Federal laws and rules that relate to control o f nonpoint source water pollution.

DEP administers the NPS Program in coordination wit h EPA, federal, state and local governmental agencies, and non-governmental organiz ations. Seven State agencies share responsibility for coordinating and implement ing NPS programs: the Departments of Agriculture, Food and Rural Resource s; Conservation, Forest Service; Transportation; Economic and Community Development; Health and Human Services,
Division of Environmental Health; Marine Resources, and the State Planning Office.2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 50 

### Highlights

Locally-led restoration work over 13 years treated numerous erosion sites and reduced polluted runoff in the watershed of Highlan d Lake, a 623 acre lake in Falmouth and Windham. Water clarity has gradually stabilized and the lake now meets water quality standards, prompting Maine DEP to remove the lake from the CWA Section 303(d) impaired waters list in 2010. T he restoration of Highland Lake and stories of other significant improvements to Ma ine lakes are highlighted on the EPA’s “Section 319 Nonpoint Source Program Success Stories” website www.epa.gov/owow/nps/Success319

. During 2009 – 2010, 39 NPS Watershed Projects that were funded through the NPS Grants Program in previous years were successfully brought to completion. These NPS projects helped local communities identify wate r pollution sources in watersheds and take action to restore or protect clean water. DEP provided technical assistance and granted $1,959,924 of Federal Clean Water Act f unds for these projects. Grantees, partners, and landowners contributed matc hing funds or services valued at $1,903,777.

More information on these watershed projects and th e NPS program in general can be found in the NPS Management Program Annual Reports for 2009 and 2010. Both reports are available at:

http://www.maine.gov/dep/water/grants/319-documents /reports/



# Marine Nonpoint Source Priority Watersheds

Contact: Angela Brewer, DEP BLWQ, Division of Envir onmental Assessment (DEA)

Tel: (207) 592-2352 e-mail: angela.d.brewer@maine.gov

The Department designates priority non-point source watersheds as part of the 319 program, and may award grants based on 1) priority marine waters as established by the Maine Watershed Management Committee in 1998 (l isted in Table 3-5), 2) designated Atlantic salmon watershed rivers (Tab le 3-6), and 3) those marine waters that have approved TMDLs (Total Maximum Dail y Load) or are scheduled for TMDLs (Table 8-16). Listed waterbodies have both s ignificant value from a regional or statewide perspective as well as water quality t hat is either impaired or threatened due to nonpoint source pollution from land use acti vities in the watershed.

Table 3-5 lists the marine priority waters and key water quality impairments or threats that have been identified. Three general impairmen t categories are listed as well as the relevant listing category for this reporting cy cle. Note that the Department has identified waterbodies where nutrient levels (speci fically nitrogen) are generally high
relative to similar reference waterbodies, and wher e indicators of nutrient enrichment have been observed due to nonpoint source pollution . In this reporting cycle, for the first time, the Department is listing a marine wate rbody for nutrient-caused impairments with source unknown (see also Chapter 4 ).2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 51 Table 3-5 Priority marine waters with impaired or t hreatened water quality due to nonpoint source pollution.

Marine Water Water Quality Impairment or Threat (If Applicable, Listing Category)

Dissolved Oxygen Toxics Nutrients

Piscataqua River estuary X (4-A) X (5-A)

Spruce Creek X

York River estuary X

Ogunquit River estuary X (4-B-1)

Webhannet River estuary X

Mousam River estuary X (5-A)

Fore River X (5-A) X

Royal River estuary X (5-A)

Maquoit Bay X

New Meadows River estuary X (4-C)

Weskeag River X

Rockland Harbor X



### Table 3-6 lists watershed rivers where critical hab itat for Atlantic salmon has been identified based on the National Oceanic and Atmosp heric Administration’s Federal Register final rule (74 FR pages 29300-29341).

Table 3-6 Atlantic Salmon Watershed Rivers

Dennys River Cove Brook

East Machias River Penobscot River

Machias River Ducktrap River

Narraguagus River Sheepscot River

Pleasant River Kennebec-Androscoggin Watershed



# Watershed Management for Stormwater Programs

Contact: Don Witherill, DEP BLWQ, Division of Envi ronmental Assessment (DEA)

Tel: (207) 215-9751 email: donald.t.witherill@maine.gov

Related Website: http://www.maine.gov/dep/land/stormwater/index.html



# S TORMWATER 

# S TANDARDS FOR 

# D EVELOPMENT AND 

# C ONSTRUCTION

Stormwater Law Maine manages stormwater through a dministration of the Stormwater Management Law. Rules were last revised in 2006. Revisions were drafted in 2010, but were put on hold due to change s in leadership. For more2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 52 

### information about the Maine Stormwater Management L aw and Rules, go to the stormwater program website: http://www.maine.gov/dep/land/stormwater/index.html

.



# S TORMWATER 

# S TANDARDS FOR 

# P OST 

# -C ONSTRUCTION

Long Creek watershed. On October 28, 2009, the EPA issued a final residual designation determination for the Long Creek waters hed in the municipalities of South Portland, Portland, Westbrook, and Scarborough. Th e designation requires that stormwater discharges from impervious areas equal t o or greater than one acre in the Long Creek watershed be authorized by a permit unde r the federal Clean Water Act because those discharges contribute to a violation of water quality standards in Long Creek. The Department issued a general permit for stormwater discharges in the Long Creek watershed on November 6, 2009. To obtai n coverage under the general permit, a discharger must participate in the implem entation of the Long Creek Watershed Management Plan (approved by DEP and EPA in 2009). Participation entails signing a contract with the Long Creek Wate rshed Management District. The contract requires an annual payment to the district based on the amount of impervious area that is contributing a discharge of stormwater to Long Creek. The payments are being utilized to carry out restoration activities described in the watershed management plan. Landowner participation in the ge neral permit exceeds 95%. Several landowners have opted to apply for in dividual permits and several have not yet obtained permit coverage and are subject to enforcement action, which is ongoing. A technical committee has been organized by the district to monitor progress on the implementation of the plan, including monito ring of water quality in Long Creek.



# S TORMWATER 

# S TANDARDS FOR 

# M UNICIPAL 

# S EPARATE 

# S TORM 

# S EWER 

# S YSTEMS 

# (MS4 S 

# ) AND 

# I NDUSTRIAL 

# S TORMWATER 

# D ISCHARGES

Maine DEP reissued its MS4 general permit in July 2 008 for 28 municipalities and 10 non-municipal entities which include state or feder al facilities, Maine DOT, and Maine Turnpike Authority within the Urbanized Area as det ermined by the 2000 census (Table 3-7). This reissuance regulates two additio nal non-municipal MS4s in the Greater Bangor Area, and has increased requirements for Urban Impaired Stream

Watersheds.

Table 3-7 Maine’s regulated MS4’s

MS4 Municipalities by geographic cluster

Kittery; Eliot; South Berwick; Berwick

Biddeford; Saco; Old Orchard Beach; Scarborough; Ca pe Elizabeth; South Portland; Portland;
Westbrook; Gorham; Windham; Falmouth; Cumberland; Y armouth; Freeport

Auburn; Lewiston; Sabattus

Hampden; Brewer; Bangor; Veazie; Orono; Old Town; M ilford

Non-traditional or “nested” MS4’s

Transportation: Maine Department of Transportation; Maine Turnpike Authority

State or Federal Entities: Portsmouth Naval Ship Y ard (Kittery); Southern Maine Community College (S. Portland); University of Southern Maine (Gorham Campus); Eastern Maine Community College2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 53 (Bangor); Dorothea Dix Psychiatric Center (Bangor); Bangor Air National Guard (Bangor); University College of Bangor (Bangor); University of Maine (Or ono)



### Industrial Stormwater Discharges

Maine DEP issued its latest multi-sector general pe rmit for industrial stormwater discharges in April 2011. Maine’s general permit la rgely mirrors the previous EPA general permit with respect to requirements for Sto rmwater Pollution Prevention Plans at the site of regulated activities. As of December 2012, approximately 690 facilities had filed for multisector permit coverage, and anot her 486 had certified that they have “no exposure” of pollutants to stormwater.



# Land Use and Growth Management

Contact: Dawn Hallowell, DEP BLWQ, Division of Land Resource Regulation (DLRR)

Tel: (207) 557-2624 email: dawn.hallowell@maine.gov

Related Websites: Site Law http://www.maine.gov/dep/land/sitelaw/index.html

NRPA: http://www.maine.gov/dep/land/nrpa/index.html

Shoreland Zoning Act: http://www.maine.gov/dep/land/slz/index.html

It has long been recognized that land use practices have direct impacts on water quality. The State of Maine has several programs in place to regulate land use activities that have potentially adverse environmen tal effects. The Site Location of Development Law (Site Law) requires developers of l arge projects to obtain permits from the Department of Environmental Protection bef ore beginning construction. Under the Natural Resources Protection Act (NRPA), a permit from the DEP is required for any activity in, on or adjacent to a p rotected natural resource, including rivers, streams, brooks, great ponds, coastal wetla nds, freshwater wetlands, sand dunes and fragile mountain areas. The Mandatory Sh oreland Zoning Act requires towns to control building sites, land uses, and pla cement of structures within their shoreland areas in order to protect water quality, habitat and fishing industries, and to conserve shore cover, public access, natural beauty and open space. Also important to environmental protection is the Growth Managemen t Act, which was enacted in 1988. The foundations for this program are based o n comprehensive planning and greater cooperation between state and local governm ents.

Please refer to page 41 of the 2006 Integrated Wate r Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report for other information on the Shor eland Zoning Act, Site Location of Development Law, and the Natural Resources Prote ction Act. http://www.maine.gov/dep/water/monitoring/305b/2006 /2006_Final_305b_Report.pdf



# Education and Outreach

Contact: Jessamine Logan, DEP OC, Director of Comm unications

Tel: (207) 287-5842 email: Jessamine.Logan@maine.gov

Related Website: http://www.maine.gov/dep2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 54 

### Maine DEP understands that engaging and empowering the public in natural resources stewardship through effective education a nd outreach efforts will only further our own mission of environmental protection . The Department has a responsibility to create and maintain public unders tanding and support for departmental objectives, programs, and regulatory r equirements and best practices. To accomplish this, the Department works to help to foster and encourage greater stewardship through education and outreach initiati ves strategically directed at a variety of audiences. In late 2011, all Department outreach and education staff were

moved into a centralized Office of Communications & Educations, which has resulted in improved, coordinated and cross-media communicat ions.

Target Audiences

Youth and Teachers - DEP sponsors and organizes Water Festivals for up to 700 students and their teachers in the southern part of the state each year and every other year in northern Maine. The events provide a day of fun and interactive learning about clean water, wetland ecosystems and the importance of stewarding Maine’s most rapidly renewable resource and are connected to mor e comprehensive classroom learning units. Department staff also educate Maine students on environmental issues through other forums as requested and as available, including Envirothon, Bug Mania and Earth Science Day (both with about 2,000 studen ts); and judging various state science fairs. In addition DEP funds up to six wat ershed grants per year to students and their teachers who partner with local organizat ions to protect a local water

resource.

General Public - The DEP divides the public into categories based on the message of the campaign: homeowners for yard care practices, b usinesses for pollution prevention practices, etc. For example, the MS4 (Mu nicipal Separate Storm Sewer System) communities are conducting pilot projects t o encourage targeted BMPS (i.e., yard care in some communities and roof runoff infil tration in others) in targeted neighborhoods with evaluation as part of their perm its. Evaluation of those projects will be conducted in the coming year and available in Se ptember of 2013.

As part of the ThinkBlue Maine Partnership, DEP sup ported a media buy in 2011 to air Ducky II, a TV ad encouraging people to reduce thei r use of lawn care products, particularly fertilizer. The ad won a Service Indus try Advertising Award Bronze Medal

in 2012. Assessment of the ad in two different sur veys found that the ad effectively conveyed the message to the target audience. In a community survey, over 50 percent polled indicated they had heard of efforts by local organizations to reduce pollution from stormwater runoff, versus 15 percent in 2008. Meanwhile, 27 percent of respondents said they were very likely to take acti on to reduce the amount of lawn fertilizers, pesticides and herbicides that they us e, and 28 percent of respondents said they already have done this.

LakeSmart is another example of reaching out to a s ubsection of the public. This educational program designates lakeshore proprietie s as LakeSmart if its owners have incorporated voluntary lake-friendly living practic es that protect and improve invaluable inland water resources and the native species, recr eation, property values, businesses and communities that rely on their health. In the d ecade since the program was introduced, DEP has deemed nearly 500 properties as LakeSmart on 33 lakes. In 2012, DEP began transferring the program to the non profit Maine Congress of Lake Associations, which counts among its members dozens of lake associations each with

their own robust networks. It is the vision of DEP and COLA that this move will give2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 55 

### the LakeSmart program access to broader funding opp ortunities and will grow as

COLA and its member lake associations have both the capacity and the credibility to deliver this program on the local level. The Depart ment looks forward to seeing how COLA expands and makes more effective this importan t educational offering given their expertise, excitement and engagement that alr eady has been awarded tens of thousands of dollars in grant funding support.

In January 2008, the Maine Legislature passed a law requiring all retailers post a sign discouraging the use of phosphorus lawn products un less reseeding or starting a new lawn. The law has decreased the use of phosphorus containing fertilizer and increased the use of phosphorus free fertilizer. Ea ch spring, the Department sends a

reminder letter to retailers and distributors thank ing them for their commitment to upholding this law and protecting water quality, as well as two complimentary signs for display.

In late 2011, DEP launched a redesigned website tha t has been lauded as a model in the State for its accessibility and usability. Info rmation on the transparent site is organized consistently and by function – like permi tting or assistance – and media – like air, water and waste management – to ensure th e general public can easily find what they are looking for despite not necessarily k nowing the Department’s internal structure. The site also puts the answers to freque ntly asked questions on its homepage, as well as an “I am a...” feature, which he lps different target audiences – like shorefront property owners, students or munici pal officials – quickly locate educational and regulatory information of relevance . The Department also launched its
Twitter feed at www.twitter.com/maine_DEP in 2011 a s another way in which to educate the public and has already gained more than 1,000 followers.

Contractors, Municipal Officials, and Other Targete d Groups - Through the Nonpoint Source Training Center within the Departme nt’s Office of Communications & Education, DEP reaches out to contractors, landscap ers, foresters and code enforcement officers to bring technical assistance, certification and new training. Maine law requires that starting January 1, 2013 contractors doing

excavation in the Shoreland Zone must be certified in erosion control and in response to that, the number of certified contractors has mo re than doubled in the past two years to more than 1,700 and hundreds more have par ticipated in the training without becoming certified. In the 15 years the program has been in place, only two certified

individuals have ever been involved in an enforceme nt action because of violation of

Maine’s erosion and sediment control law. Two certi fied individuals have also won the

“Contractor of the Year” award from the Internation al Erosion Control Association. DEP staff also train wastewater treatment plant ope rators, planning boards, realtors,

CEO code enforcement and other audiences.

Assessment

Thanks to increased use of press releases, our webs ite, social media and other existing and emerging communication tools, DEP is r eaching more Mainers each year. The effectiveness of the Department’s education and outreach efforts continue to be enhanced as better tools to monitor impressions and measure effectiveness are developed and allow us to hone meaningful messages to target each audience with. In some cases, correlating the impact of our education to water quality is difficult, but in
others, like the fact that our certified contractor s have so few compliance issues, we have evidence that supports our past approaches and guides future ones.2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 56 

# T HE 

# E NVIRONMENTAL 

# I MPACT AND 

# E CONOMIC 

# & S OCIAL


# C OSTS 

# /B ENEFITS OF 

# E FFECTIVE 

# W ATER 

# Q UALITY 

# P ROGRAMS

Contact: Marianne DuBois, DEP BLWQ, Division of Wa tershed Management (DWM)

Tel: (207) 485-1402 email: marianne.s.dubois@maine.gov

Assessment of the many costs and benefits associate d with water quality changes is a difficult task. While it is usually possible to det ermine that an improvement in water quality has been gained and to qualitatively descri be the benefits, often there is no easy way to directly assign a dollar figure to the changes and quantify this information in terms of the monetary value of benefits to human health or the environment.

The economic tools that would be useful in helping to estimate the costs and benefits of improvement in water quality have not yet been f ully developed. As future environmental problems grow in complexity and cost, and as public budgets tighten, demonstrating the benefits of water-quality related programs will be necessary to maintain support for continued investment in the im provement of water resources. Continued development of sophisticated economic too ls for measuring the benefits of environmental projects and methods is essential.

The following sections contain brief summaries of s elected water quality programs.



# Nonpoint Source Management

Contact: Norm Marcotte, DEP BLWQ, Division of Water shed Management (DWM)

Tel: (207) 215-6277 email: norm.g.marcotte@maine.gov

Related Website: http://www.maine.gov/dep/water/grants/319.html

Table 3-8 summarizes costs for NPS pollution progra ms involving Federal grants

under Section 319 of the Clean Water Act and to non -federal matching funds. Table 3-8 is a summary of Section 319(h) Clean Water Act Grant Awards to Maine DEP for Federal Fiscal Years (FFY) 2003 to 2010.

Table 3-8 Section 319(h) Clean Water Act Grant Awar ds to Maine

Grant Year (FFY) Federal

319 Award Base Incremental Non

- Federal

Match Total

2003 $2,740,732 $1,572,554 $1,168,178 $1,827,155 $4,567,887
2004 $2,670,204 $1,502,081 $1,168,123 $1,780,890 $4,451,094
2005 $2,318,844 $1,151,519 $1,167,325 $1,546,669 $3,856,513
2006 $2,303,829 $1,136,597 $1,167,232 $1,545,896 $3,849,725
2007 $2,256,543 $1,077,063 $1,167,066 $1,504,362 $3,760,905
2008 $2,247,537 $1,082,056 $1,165,481 $1,934,529 $4,182,066
2009 $2,244,129 $1,084,415 $1,159,714 $1,496,086 $3,740,315
2010 $2,247,620 $1,089,500 $1,158,120 $1,499,163 $3,746,7832012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 57 

# Pollution Prevention Initiatives

Contact: George MacDonald, Director, DEP BRWM, Sust ainability Division

Tel: (207) 287-2812 email: George.MacDonald@maine.gov

Related Website: http://www.maine.gov/dep/assistance/index.html

The Office of Assistance’s pollution prevention ini tiatives and methods are based on the practical notion that it is far more protective of the environment (in addition to being far more cost-effective) to eliminate or redu ce pollution at its source rather than to clean up pollution that has already been release d into an ecosystem. The Office of Assistance staff works with businesses and also pro vides input to DEP programs that provide BMPs for minimizing pollution sources such as stormwater runoff. The Office of Assistance engages in a proactive approach that utilizes the common ideals of increased efficiency, conservation of resources, re duced waste and costs, etc. to identify those points in a process that generate po llution. Once identified, staff shares with the regulated community many approaches such a s forming good habits, purchasing environmentally preferable products, and implementing new technologies to analyze, focus on, and help to improve those por tions of a process that prevent pollution. The Office of Assistance uses some or a ll of these tools to reduce or eliminate sources of pollution.

Please refer to pages 45-48 of the 2006 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report for information on costs/benefits of the Pollution Prevention Program. http://www.maine.gov/dep/water/monitoring/305b/2006 /2006_Final_305b_Report.pdf2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 58 

# C HAPTER 

# 4 S URFACE 

# W ATER 

# M ONITORING 

# & A SSESSMENTS



# A SSESSMENT 

# M ETHODOLOGY

Contact: Susanne Meidel, DEP BLWQ, Division of Envi ronmental Assessment (DEA)

Tel: (207) 441-3612 email: Susanne.K.Meidel@maine.gov



# Listing Methodology for the 2012 305b / 303d Integr ated Report

List

Determination of water quality attainment is based on a waterbody meeting all standards including the criteria established for it s assigned classification (38 MRSA Section 465, 465-A, 465-B). Waters are listed in A ppendices II-V by Assessment Unit (HUC) and/or waterbody segment in one of five categ ories of attainment (see category descriptions below). For the 2012 report, water qu ality attainment decisions were primarily based on monitoring data collected in 200 9 and 2010 although more recent data was consulted where appropriate.

All freshwaters in Maine are subject to a statewide fish consumption advisory due to “Impairment caused by atmospheric deposition of mer cury”. On December 20, 2007 US EPA approved a Regional Mercury Total Maximum Da ily Load (TMDL) that moved all Maine freshwaters into Category 4-A (“TMDL is c ompleted”). Other category listings are established independently from the sta tewide mercury advisory listing, thus all waters are listed in Category 4-A for mercury a nd in at least one other category. All marine waters are listed by narrative in Category 5 -D “Legacy Pollutants” as well as in one other category (see Marine explanation below † 

### ). Each listing in Appendices II-V provides the Assessment Unit (Rivers and Streams an d Wetlands) or HUC (Lakes) or Waterbody ID (Estuarine and Marine waters), Name, S ize, Classification, Monitored Date, and depending on assessment determination, in formation on impairment, notes on previous listings, or other information. Note t hat the United States Geological Survey has replaced the HUC system with the WBD (Wa tershed Boundary Dataset) system. Because of this conversion, a mismatch now exists between some HUCs used in the draft IR and current WBDs (former HUCs) . DEP did not update the HUC part of any AU ID to conform to the new WBD system and is retaining the term ‘HUC’ to indicate continued usage of the older system.



# L ISTING 

# C ATEGORIES 

# (1-5)

Category 1:

Attaining all designated uses and water quality sta ndards, and no use is

threatened.

Highest level of attainment, waters in the assessme nt unit attains all applicable

standards. Assessment is based on combined evaluat ion of the following information.

† All estuarine and marine waters in Maine have an ad visory for the consumption of shellfish (lobster to malley) due to the presence of PCBs and dioxins presumed to be from at mospheric deposition or historical sources. The ad visory is based on probability data that shellfish (lobster tomalle y) inhabiting estuarine or marine waters may exceed the advisory action level for these substances. This Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report does not c onsider this statewide advisory in establishing other category l istings.2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 59 

### 1. Current data (collected within five years) indi cates attainment, with no trend toward expected non-attainment within the listing period.

2. Old data (greater than five years) indicates at tainment and no change in any

associated conditions.

3. Water quality models predict attainment under c urrent loading, with no projected change in loading that would predict non-attainment

. 4. Qualitative data or information from profession al sources indicating attainment of standards and showing no identifiable sources (e.g. detectable points of entry of either licensed or unlicensed wastes) of pollution, low im pact land use (e.g. intact riparian buffers, >90% forested watershed, little impervious surface), watershed within state or federal reserve land, park, wilderness area or simi lar conservation protection, essentially unaltered habitat, and absence of other potential stressors.

5. Determination that the direct drainage area has a human population of <0.1 per square mile according to U.S. Census data obtained in 2000 and watershed
conditions as described in item 4, above. For lake s, determinations are based on

census data at the town level and consider all town s in the direct drainage of larger (referred to in previous Integrated Reports as “sig nificant”) lakes. Populations for the remaining lakes (generally less than ten acres) are determined for the town listed as the point-of-record for the water according to the Department of Inland Fisheries and

Wildlife Lake Index database.


## Category 2:

Attains some of the designated uses; no use is thre atened; and insufficient data

or no data and information is available to determin e if the remaining uses are attained or threatened (with presumption that all u ses are attained).

Assessment is based on combined evaluation of the f ollowing information.

1. Current data (collected within five years) for some standards indicating attainment, with no trend toward expected non-attainment within the listing period, or an inadequate density of data to evaluate a trend.

2. Old data (greater than five years) for some sta ndards indicating attainment, and no change in associated conditions.

3. Water quality models that predict attainment un der current loading for some standards, with no projected change in loading that would predict non-attainment.

4. (For lakes) Probabilistic-based monitoring that indicates a high expectation of use

attainment for certain classes of waters based on r andom monitoring of that class of

waters.

5. Insufficient data for some standards, but quali tative data/information from professional sources indicate a low likelihood of i mpairment from any potential sources (e.g. high dilution, intermittent/seasonal effects, low intensity land use).


## Category 3:

Insufficient data and information to determine if d esignated uses are attained (with presumption that one or more uses may be impa ired).

Assessment is based on combined evaluation of the f ollowing information. Monitoring schedules are assigned to these waters.

1. Insufficient or conflicting data that does not confirm either attainment or nonattainment of designated uses.2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 60 

### 2. Qualitative data or information from profession al sources showing the potential presence of stressors that may cause impairment of one or more uses; however, no quantitative water quality information confirms the presence of impairment-causing

stressors.

3. Old data, with:

a. low reliability, no repeat measurements (e.g. on e-time synoptic data),

b. a change of conditions without subsequent re-mea surement; or

c. no evidence of human causes or sources of pollut ion to account for observed water quality condition (natural conditions that do not attain water quality standards are allowed by 38 M.R.S.A. Section 464.4. C).

4. (For lakes) Current data indicates a return to (or a trend towards) attainment standards over the past few years but requires conf irmation; or conversely, that trophic or dissolved oxygen profile evaluation sugg ests deteriorating conditions requiring further study and verification. (Since l akes respond over a longer period of time and can be highly influenced by weather attrib utes, it is appropriate to recommend additional monitoring before attainment i s determined.)


## Category 4:

Impaired or threatened for one or more designated u ses, but does not require development of a TMDL.

A water body is listed in Category 4 when impairmen t is not caused by a pollutant; or, if impairment is caused by a pollutant, but where a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) has already been completed, or where other enforcea ble controls are in place. An impaired waterbody will be listed in Category 5 if both a pollutant and a non-pollutant are involved that would independently cause an impa ired or threatened condition. Waters are listed in one of the following Category 4 sub-lists when:

1. Current or old data for a standard indicates ei ther impaired use, or a trend toward expected non-attainment within the listing period, but also where enforceable management changes are expected to correct the cond ition,

2. Water quality models that predicted impaired us e under loading for some standard, also predict attainment when required controls are in place, or,

3. Quantitative or qualitative data/information fr om professional sources indicates that the cause of impaired use is not from a pollutant(s ) (e.g. habitat modification).

4-A: TMDL is completed. A TMDL is complete but insufficient new data exists to

determine that attainment has been achieved.

Note 1: As of the 2008 cycle, Category 4-A includes all fr eshwaters in Maine that were listed in previous cycles in a narrative Categ ory 5-C “Impairment caused by atmospheric deposition of mercury” based on the Sta tewide fish consumption advisory due to mercury. On December 20, 2007 the US EPA approved a Regional Mercury TMDL for the Northeast.

Note 2: See also the section titled “Summary of Statewide River and Stream

Attainment Status” below for comments about the 201 2 US EPA approval of a statewide Maine % Impervious Cover TMDL.2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 61 

### 4-B: Other pollution control requirements are reaso nably expected to result in

attainment of standards in the near future. Waterbodies where enforceable controls have a reasonable expectation of attaining standards, but where no new data

are available to determine that attainment has been achieved. (Enforceable controls may include: new wastewater discharge licenses issu ed without preparation of a TMDL, other regulatory orders, contracts for nonpoi nt source implementation projects, regulatory orders or contracts for hazardous waste remediation projects).

4-C: Impairment is not caused by a pollutant. Waters impaired by habitat modification (e.g., a dam) that is a result of huma n activity.

Note : Natural conditions that do not attain water quali ty standards and criteria are allowed by 38 M.R.S.A. Section 464.4.C. Waters that show impairment due to natural phenomena are listed in Categories 1 thr ough 3.


## Category 5:

Waters impaired or threatened for one or more desig nated uses by a pollutant(s) and a TMDL is required.

Waters are listed in one of the Category 5 sub-list s when:

1. Current data (collected within five years) for a standard either indicates impaired use, or a trend toward expected impairment within t he listing period, and where quantitative or qualitative data/information from p rofessional sources indicates that the cause of impaired use is from a pollutant(s),

2. Water quality models predict impaired use under current loading for a standard, and where quantitative or qualitative data/informat ion from professional sources indicates that the cause of impaired use is from a pollutant(s), or,

3. Those waters have been previously listed on the State’s 303(d) list of impaired
waters, based on current or old data that indicated the involvement of a pollutant(s), and where there has been no change in management or conditions that would indicate

attainment of use.

5-A: Impairment caused by pollutants (other than th ose listed in 5-B through 5- D). A Total Maximum Daily Load is required and wil l be conducted by the State

of Maine. TMDL schedules are assigned based on the value of a particular water (considering size, public use, proximity to populat ion centers, and level of public interest for water quality improvement), the nature of the impairment and the source(s) of the problem, available information to complete t he TMDL, and availability of staff and contractual resources to acquire information an d complete the TMDL study. Projected schedules for TMDL completion are include d in Chapter 8 (Tables 8-13 to 8- 16) as well as in the Appendices.

5-B: Impairment is caused solely by bacteria contam ination. A TMDL is required. Certain waters impaired only by bacteria contamin ation may be high priority resources, such as shellfish areas, but a low prior ity for TMDL development if other actions are already in progress that will correct t he problem in advance of TMDL development (e.g. better compliance). Certain smal l streams that are impaired solely by bacteria contamination but where recreation (swi mming) is impractical because of their small size are listed in 5-B. A projected sc hedule of TMDL completion is included where applicable. Waterbodies impaired only by Co mbined Sewer Overflows, where current CSO Master Plans (Long-Term Control Plan) a re in place, will be monitored to demonstrate that water quality standards are attain ed and that provisions are in place for both funding and compliance timetables.2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 62 

### 5-C: Impairment caused by atmospheric deposition of mercury and a regional scale TMDL is required. Due to EPA approval of a regional scale TMDL for the control of mercury all of Maine’s Category 5-C wate rs were administratively moved to Category 4-A in the 2008 cycle.

5-D: Impairment caused by a “legacy” pollutant. This sub-category includes:

1. waters impaired only by PCBs, dioxins, DDT, or other substances already banned from production or use. It includes waters impaire d by contaminated sediments where there is no additional extrinsic load occurring. This is a low priority for TMDL development since there is no controllable load.

2. coastal waters that have a consumption advisory for the tomalley (hepatopancreas organ) of lobsters due to the presence of persisten t bioaccumulating toxics found in that organ. This is a low priority for TMDL develop ment since there is no identifiable

and controllable load.



# D ELISTING FROM AN 

# I MPAIRED TO AN 

# U NIMPAIRED 

# C ATEGORY



# . Because there are a number of listing options avail able in the integrated list, some waterbodies may be removed from the previous “impai red waters” list, i.e., 303(d) list,, however, only under certain circumstances. The Sta te must provide new information, to EPA’s satisfaction, as a basis for not listing s pecific waters that had been previously included on a 303(d) list. Acceptable reasons for not listing previously listed waters as provided in 40 CFR 130.7(b) may include situations where:

• The assessment and interpretation of more recent, more accurate or paleolimnological data demonstrates that the applicable water quality stan dard(s) is being met (list in Category 1, 2).

• The results of more refined water quality modeling demonstrate that the applicable water quality standard(s) is being met (list in Category 1 or 2).

• It can be demonstrated that errors or insufficienc ies in the original data and information led to the water being incorrectly listed (list in Categor y 1 or 2).

• It can be documented that there are changes in the conditions or criteria that originally caused the water to be impaired and therefore origi nally led to the listing. For example, new control equipment has been installed, a discharge h as been eliminated, or new criteria adopted (list in Category 1, 2, or 4-B).

• The State has demonstrated pursuant to 40 CFR 130. 7(b)(1)(ii), that there are effluent limitations required by State or local authority, w hich are more stringent than technology-based effluent limitations, required by the Clean Water Act, and that these more stringent effluent limitations will result in the a ttainment of water quality standards for the pollutant causing the impairment within a reasonabl e time (list in Category 4-B).

• The State has demonstrated pursuant to 40 CFR 130. 7(b)(1)(iii), that there are other pollution control requirements required by State, local, or f ederal authority that will result in attainment of water quality standards for a specific pollutant (s) within a reasonable time (list in Category 4-B).

• The State included on a previous Section 303(d) li st some Water Quality Limited Segments beyond those that are required by EPA regulations, e.g., waters where there is no pollutant associated with the impairment (list in Category 4- C).

• A TMDL has been approved or established by EPA sin ce the last 303(d) list (list in Category 4-A).


### Chapter 8 Tables 8-5 to 8-8 present waters that hav e been delisted from Maine’s 2010 impaired waters (303d) list. For waters that were d elisted for reasons other than TMDL approval, delisting information is presented in Cha pter 8 in the section New Delistings.2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 63 

# A SSESSMENT 

# C RITERIA

Tables 4-1 through 4-3 provide the designated use c ategories and the criteria (with references) used to assess a water's attainment of the use. A determination of nonattainment is only made when there is documented, q uality assured, evidence (e.g. monitoring data) indicating that one or more criter ia are not attained. Such data are also weighed against evidence that there are plausi ble human-caused factors that may contribute to the violation of criteria (38 MRS A Section 464.4.C).

A special case is made for wetlands assessments wit h respect to documented evidence of impairment. For Category 3-5 wetlands that are located in a river/stream or lake/pond (e.g. a wetland that occurs in a slow- flowing section of a stream), any impairments, for example to the fish consumption us e, that are listed for the related river/stream or lake/pond assessment unit (AU) are also assigned to the wetland AU even if no wetland-specific data for such an impair ment exist. For Category 3-5

wetlands that are not located in a river/stream or lake/pond, DEP biologists will decide on a case-by-case basis whether any other impairmen ts should be carried over or not.

Table 4-1 Maine Designated Uses and Criteria for Ri vers and Streams



# Rivers and Streams 1

Designated Use Criteria for Attainment

Drinking water supply after

disinfection / treatment • Ambient Water Quality Criteria (Maine DEP Chapter 530)

• General provisions: floating/settleable solids, pH , radioactive substances (38 MRSA Section 464.4.A)

• Maine CDC’s Maximum Exposure Guidelines (MEGs)

Aquatic life use support 2 • Biomonitoring - lotic benthic macroinvertebrates: numeric biocriteria (Maine DEP Rule Chapter 579)

• Biomonitoring - lotic algae: narrative aquatic lif e use criteria and (38 MRSA Section 465) and expert judgment evaluatio n of structure and function of the resident biological c ommunity

• Biomonitoring - wetland macroinvertebrates: narrat ive aquatic life use criteria (38 MRSA Section 465) and expert judgm ent

evaluation of structure and function of the residen t biological community

• Habitat suitability (38 MRSA Section 464.13, 465.1 -4)

• Dissolved oxygen (38 MRSA Section 464.13, 465.1-4)

• Ambient Water Quality Criteria (Maine DEP Chapter 530.5)

• Support of indigenous species

• Wetted habitat (Maine DEP Chapter 581)

• General provisions: floating/settleable solids, pH , radioactive substances (38 MRSA Section 464.4.A)

Fishing/Fish Consumption • Support of indigenous fish species

• Absence of fish consumption advisory (instituted b y Maine CDC)

• General provisions: floating/settleable solids, pH , radioactive substances (38 MRSA Section 464.4.A)

Recreation in and on the water 2 • E. coli bacteria (38 MRSA Section 465, geometric mean)

• Water color (38 MRSA Section 414-C)

• General provisions: floating/settleable solids, pH , radioactive substances (38 MRSA Section 464.4.A)
Navigation, hydropower, agriculture / industrial supply • General provisions: floating/settleable solids, pH , radioactive substances (38 MRSA Section 464.4.A)

1 Fringing wetlands are listed in Appendix IV, Main e Wetlands Assessments

2 DEP is revising draft nutrient criteria for fresh surface waters (Draft Chapter 583) that relate to e xisting aquatic life and recreational designated uses. For more informatio n, please visit the following website: http://www.maine.gov/dep/water/nutrient-criteria/2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 64 Table 4-2 Maine Designated Uses and Criteria for La kes and Ponds



# Lakes and Ponds 1

Designated Use Criteria for Attainment

Drinking water supply after

disinfection / treatment • Ambient Water Quality Criteria (Maine DEP Rule Cha pter 530.5)

• General provisions: floating/settleable solids, pH , radioactive substances (38 MRSA Section 464.4.A)

Aquatic life use support 2 • Trophic state (38 MRSA Section 465-A, DEP Chapter 581)

• Ambient Water Quality Criteria (Maine DEP Chapter 530.5)

• Aquatic life (38 MRSA Section 465-A, 464.9)

• Biomonitoring (wetland habitats) - wetland macroin vertebrates: narrative aquatic life use criteria (38 MRSA §465) and expert judgment evaluation of structure and function of the resident biologica l community

• General provisions: floating/settleable solids, pH , radioactive substances (38 MRSA Section 464.4.A)

• Hydropower GPA impoundments (38 MRSA Section 464. 9)

Fishing • Support of indigenous fish species

• No fish consumption advisory (instituted by Maine CDC)

• General provisions: floating/settleable solids, pH , radioactive substances (38 MRSA Section 464.4.A)

Recreation in and on the

water 2 • E. coli bacteria (38 MRSA Section 465-A, geometric mean)

• Trophic state (38 MRSA Section 465-A, DEP Rule Cha pter 581)

• General provisions: floating/settleable solids, pH , radioactive substances, (38 MRSA Section 464.4.A)
Navigation, hydropower, agriculture / industrial supply • General provisions: floating/settleable solids, pH , radioactive substances (38 MRSA Section 464.4.A)

1 Fringing wetlands are listed in Appendix IV, Main e Wetlands Assessments

2 DEP is revising draft nutrient criteria for fresh surface waters (Draft Chapter 583) that relate to existing aquatic life and recreational designated uses. For more informatio n, please visit the following website: http://www.maine.gov/dep/water/nutrient-criteria/



### Table 4-3 Maine Designated Uses and Criteria for Es tuarine and Marine Waters



# Estuarine and Marine Waters

Designated Use Criteria for Attainment

Marine life use support • Ambient Water Quality Criteria (Maine DEP Chapter 530.5)

• Dissolved oxygen (38 MRSA Section 465-B)

• Narrative biological standards (38 MRSA Section 46 5-B)

• General provisions: floating/settleable solids, pH , radioactive substances (38 MRSA Section 464.4.A)

Shellfish propagation and

harvest 1 • National Shellfish Sanitation Program (as assessed by DMR)

• No shellfish consumption advisory (instituted by M aine CDC)

• General provisions: floating/settleable solids, pH , radioactive substances (38 MRSA Section 464.4.A)

Aquaculture • General provisions: floating/settleable solids, pH , radioactive substances (38 MRSA Section 464.4.A)

Fishing • Support of indigenous fish species

• No fish consumption advisory (instituted by Maine CDC)

• General provisions: floating/settleable solids, pH , radioactive substances (38 MRSA Section 464.4.A)

Recreation in and on the

water • Enterococcus bacteria (38 MRSA Section 465-B, geometric mean)

• General provisions: floating/settleable solids, pH , radioactive substances (38 MRSA Section 464.4.A)
Navigation, hydropower, industrial supply • General provisions: floating/settleable solids, pH , radioactive substances (38 MRSA Section 464.4.A)

1 Applies to estuarine/marine waters with high enoug h salinity to naturally support shellfish propagati on and harvest2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 65 

# Data Interpretation

It is not common to have complete and consistent wa ter quality data; therefore, some interpretation of data is required in making a fina l assessment. Data from unique events such as a spill, an accident, a short-durati on license exceedance, or a drought

or flood are not used in an assessment determinatio n. The following general principles for each criteria type are used in makin g an assessment:

Biological Criteria: River, stream, and wetland benthic macroinvertebra te and algal samples are collected in accordance with the Biomon itoring Program Quality Assurance Project Plan. Stream macroinvertebrate a ssessments are based on a statistical model that predicts attainment of tiere d aquatic life uses (Classes AA/A, Class B, and Class C). The stream macroinvertebrat e model is described in Maine DEP Rule Chapter 579: Classification Attainment Evaluation Using Biologic al Criteria

for Rivers and Streams . For streams and rivers, aquatic life criteria are deemed to be attained when the applicable biocriterion is met wi th probability greater than 0.60. Final determination of attainment may in some cases be made by professional judgment, applied in accordance with the procedures described in Maine DEP Chapter

579.

The Biological Monitoring Program recently complete d an algal bioassessment model applicable to wadeable streams and rivers with rock y substrates. The Program also recently completed a provisional macroinvertebrate bioassessment model for freshwater emergent and aquatic bed wetlands, inclu ding fringing wetlands associated with rivers, streams, lakes and ponds. The stream a lgal model and wetland macroinvertebrate models have not yet been implemen ted. For the 2012 Integrated Report, Department biologists used expert judgment to evaluate structure and function of the stream algal and wetland macroinvertebrate c ommunities to assess attainment of narrative aquatic life criteria (38 MRSA §465). Chapter 579 will be amended to include the stream algal and wetland macroinvertebr ate models, following standard public review protocols, after they have been adequ ately tested. Ambient water quality criteria, whole effluent toxicity (WET) tes ting, and other biological sampling are also used to determine if other components of the b iological community, such as fish, meet the aquatic life uses.

Lake Trophic State: Assessment is based on measures of transparency, c hlorophyll a, total phosphorus and color (Table 4-4). When la kes lack this information, a trophic determination made by DIF&W is used, if available. Their determination is more subjective and generally applies to the lake system as a whole including adjacent wetlands and fisheries productivity. Trophic deter mination is tracked by source (DEP or DIF&W) in the assessment database.2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 66 Table 4-4 Lake Trophic State Parameters and Guideli nes

Numerical Guidelines for Evaluation of Trophic Stat us in Maine *

(Note: Dystrophy is not often evaluated as a trophi c category separately from categories below.) Trophic Status

Parameter 1 Oligotrophic Mesotrophic 2 Eutrophic

SDT 3 > 8 meters 4-8 meters < 4 meters CHL a < 1.5 ppb 1.5 – 7 ppb > 7 ppb
Total Phosphorus 3 < 4.5 ppb 4.5 – 20 ppb >20 ppb

TSI 3,4 0-25 25-60 >60 and/or repeated algal blooms

1 SDT, CHL a, and Total Phosphorus based on long-ter m means.

2 No chronic nuisance algal blooms.

3 If color is > 30 Standard Platinum Units (SPU) or not known, chlorophyll a concentration (CHL a), dis solved oxygen and best professional judgment used to assig n trophic category.

4 TSI = Trophic State Indices are calculated when ad equate data exists and color is at or below 30 SPU. * This table is a duplicated Lakes Section of this Chapter for convenience.



### Support of Indigenous Species: Assessment based on the known absence of a species that previously was documented as indigenou s to a waterbody in historical records collected by state or federal agencies or t hrough published scientific literature; or based on non-attainment of water quality criteri a or absence of critical habitat necessary to support indigenous species.

Dissolved Oxygen: Assessment of dissolved oxygen is based on the res ults of repeated measurements, collected over time. Single excursions of the criterion or excursions within the range of sampling or instrume nt error (as established in a Quality Assurance Project Plan) may not be used in every case unless there is corroborating evidence of reasonable potential for impairment of a use. Factors to be taken into account when considering corroborating e vidence include, but are not limited to: time of data collection; in-stream char acteristics; site characteristics (e.g. land use, gradient, canopy cover); water temperatur e; extent of excursion; algal community; measurement method. Assessment may also be based on the use of water quality models (e.g. QUAL2E) based on present or expected loadings. New legislation provides that dissolved oxygen in the d eeper waters of a riverine impoundment may not be used for measurement of wate r quality attainment.

Ambient Water Quality Criteria: Assessment is based on measured exceedance of Statewide Water Quality Criteria (or Site-specific criteria where they may exist), or reasonable potential to exceed the criteria followi ng EPA’s Principle of Independent Applicability and Technical support document. Sing le excursions of the criterion or excursions within the range of sampling or instrume nt error (as established in a Quality Assurance Project Plan) may not be used in every case unless there is corroborating evidence of reasonable potential for impairment of a use. Factors to be taken into account when considering corroborating e vidence include, but are not
limited to: in-stream characteristics; land use; ex tent of excursion; analysis method; hardness; pH, temperature or dissolved organic carb on. Assessment may also be based on the use of water quality models (e.g. dilu tion models) based on present or expected loadings.

Nutrient/Eutrophication Biological Indicators: Excessive nutrient enrichment (eutrophication) can cause negative environmental i mpacts to surface waters, such as algal blooms, low dissolved oxygen concentrations, fish kills, excessive growths of filamentous algae or bacteria, generation of cyanot oxins, and alteration of community structure. In 2012, the Department prepared a new draft of Chapter 583: Nutrient

Criteria for Surface Waters in preparation for a rulemaking process. The U.S.2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 67 

### Environmental Protection Agency indicated their sup port of the new version of the draft rule. Chapter 583 focused on freshwater syst ems and described how the Department would use total phosphorus (TP) concentr ations and environmental response indicator measurements in a decision frame work to determine attainment of designated uses (e.g., recreation, aquatic life sup port). The proposed rule also described how the Department would use the attainme nt determinations for the establishment of nutrient discharge limits in Natio nal Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits.

Chapter 583 will eventually include nutrient criter ia for marine waters, which will include thresholds for total nitrogen (TN) as well as environmental response indicators to determine attainment of designated uses in estua rine and coastal waters. Marine nitrogen criteria are currently under development. For more information on both freshwater and marine nutrient criteria, please vis it the following website: http://www.maine.gov/dep/water/nutrient-criteria/in dex.html

Non-numeric listing criteria for this cause of Aqua tic Life Use (ALU) impairment consist of documentation of abnormal biological findings th at indicate nutrient enrichment in

rivers and streams as well as marine and estuarine waters. Excess nutrients impair ALU through alteration of habitat, creation of diur nal dissolved oxygen sags caused by excessive plant and algae growth, abundant epiphyti c growth resulting in decreased light availability to submerged vegetation, and alt eration of benthic macroinvertebrate assemblage structure.

Bacteria: Assessment is based on repeated measurements (gene rally at least six) to establish an annual geometric mean. Single sample measures are highly variable and not a reliable indicator of impairment or attainmen t, but the instantaneous criterion provides a benchmark for use in interpreting of Mai ne’s water quality standards. Impairment decisions are made using diagnostic proc edures that determine the probability of a human or domestic animal source of bacteria; bacteria of wildlife origin do not violate Maine’s standards (38 M.R.S.A Sectio n 465, 465-A, 465-B).

Water Color: Assessment based on repeated measurements of disch arge performance data (pulp and paper discharges only).

General Provisions: pH based on repeated measurements (between 6.0 and 8.5 for freshwaters; 7.0 and 8.5 for marine waters), howeve r, certain naturally occurring waterbody types (e.g. bogs, aquifer lakes, high ele vation lakes) or events may naturally have low pH and affect downstream waters. Use impairment from solids is subjectively determined. Radioactivity in surface water is not presently monitored.2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 68 

# I NTEGRATED 

# R EPORT 

# L ISTS OF 

# C ATEGORIES 

# 1 T HROUGH 

# 5

Table 4-5 presents a summary of state waters (river s/streams, lakes/ponds, wetlands, and estuarine/marine waters) which are attaining, o r not attaining, standards. Tables 4-6 through 4-19 present three different types of i nformation for those same types of state waters; the three types are: 1) Individual de signated use support summary (4-6 through 4-9); 2) Total size of Category 4 and 5 imp aired waters by listing cause/stressor type (4-10 through 4-14); 3) Total s ize of Category 4 and 5 impaired waters by source category (4-15 through 4-10).

Table 4-5 Summary of State Waters Attaining and Not Attaining Standards

Waterbody Type Total

Assessed for Attaining

of WQ

Standards

– Assessed

for Designated

Uses Total with

Insufficient

Data for

Assessment

– Not Assessed for Any Designated

Uses (Category 3) Total Attaining

All WQ

Standards

- Supporting All Designated

Uses (Category 1) Total

Attaining At

Least One

Standard

– Supporting at

Least One Use, But Not

All Standards

Assessed (Category 2) Total Not

Attaining One

or More WQ

Standards

– Not Supporting

One or More

Uses – But Not Needing a

TMDL (Category 4) Total Not

Attaining One

or More WQ

Standards

– Not Supporting

One or More

Uses – and

TMDL is

Needed (Category 5)

River & Stream

Miles 1 31,298 383 4,338 25,371 273 2 932

Number of

Lakes/Ponds 5,780 3 0 2,857 2,894 3 27 2

Lake & Pond

Acres 986,952 3 0 295,443 606,945 3 75,915 8,649

Freshwater

Wetland Stations 122 14 0 96 8 4

Freshwater

Wetland Acres 4 1240 5 841 0 size undetermined 57 342

Estuarine/Marine Square Miles 2,876 4 0.0 2,690 174 7 6

Estuarine/Marine (Acres) 1,840,147 2,835 0.0 1,721,748 111,253 4,311 6

Tidal Wetland

Acres N/A 6 N/A 6 N/A 6 N/A 6 N/A 6 N/A 6

1 River and Stream mile summaries for each reporting category were generated by the Maine Assessment Da tabase (ADB) and may be somewhat different from river and stream miles reported in Table 2-1.

2 These figures do not include those waters listed u nder Category 4-A for atmospheric deposition of mer cury.
3 Includes 6 Category 2 lakes (22 acres) on coastal islands, all 6 lakes are not assigned to mainland H UCs.

4 Wetland acreage summaries for each reporting catego ry were generated by the Maine Assessment Database (ADB).

5 For Category 1 and Category 3 through 5 only.

6 All estuarine and marine waters capable of natural ly supporting lobster propagation are affected by a shellfish (lobster tomalley) consumption advisory due to the presence of PCBs and dioxins. These Category 5 totals do no t include coastal waters under the statewide consumption advisory.

6 "N/A" means "Not Assessed".2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 69 Table 4-6 Individual Designated Use Support Summary for Maine Rivers and Streams

USE Total Size

(Miles 1 ) Size

Assessed (Miles 1 ) Size Fully

Supporting (Miles 1 ) Size Fully

Supporting and

Threatened (Miles 1 ) Size Not

Supporting (Miles 1 ) Size with

Insufficient Info (Miles 1 )

Agricultural Supply 31,298 30,352 30,352 0 0 945 Drinking Water Supply After

Disinfection 20,089 4,400 4,400 0 0 15,688

Drinking Water Supply After

Treatment 11,128 1,160 1,156 0 3 9,956

Fish and Other Aquatic Life 31,221 30,619 29,912 0 707 599 Fish Consumption 2 31,298 5,535 4,902 0 633 26,744 Fishing 31,219 5,553 5,545 0 8 25,648
Hydroelectric Power

Generation 21,002 1,769 1,769 0 0 19,217

Industrial Process and Cooling Water Supply 21,002 1,769 1,769 0 0 19,217

Navigation 31,219 5,557 5,552 0 5 25,642 Primary Contact Recreation 31,219 5,537 5,343 0 193 25,462 Secondary Contact

Recreation 31,219 5,534 5,359 0 175 25,464

1 River and stream mile summaries were generated by the Maine Assessment Database (ADB).

2 All freshwaters are listed for a fish consumption advisory due to mercury (Category 4A-EPA approved R egional Mercury TMDL). The Fish Consumption listing is for additio nal consumption advisories beyond that caused by me rcury (these waters also have a mercury advisory).



### Table 4-7 Individual Designated Use Support Summary for Maine Lakes

CWA Goals Designated Use Size Fully Supporting – Attaining WQ

Standards (Acres) Size Not

Supporting – Not Attaining

WQ Standards (Acres) Size Not

Attainable –

UAA

Performed

Protect & Enhance Ecosystems Aquatic Life Support 893,228* 84,564 9,160**

Protect & Enhance

Public Health Fish Consumption (Hg)

Swimming Secondary Contact Drinking Water Source Water 0
962,887
986,952
986,952 986,952

24,065

0

0 0

0

0



### 0

Social & Economic Agricultural

Industrial

Cultural or Ceremonial

State Defined: 1. Hydropower & Navigation 986,952
986,952
986,952

986,952 0

0

0

0 0

0

0



### 0

*Includes Fully Supporting (Cat. 1:295,443 acres) a nd Insufficient Information but assumed to be Fully Supporting (Cat. 2: 596,474 acres) less UAA acreage. **Includes acreages of Ragged (2,712 acres) and Seb oomook (6,448 acres) Lakes2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 70 Table 4-8 Individual Designated Use Support Summary for Maine Wetlands

USE Total

Size (Acres 1 ) Size

Assessed (Acres 1 ) Size Fully

Supporting (Acres 1 ) Size Fully

Supporting and

Threatened (Acres 1 ) Size Not

Supporting (Acres 1 ) Size with

Insufficient

Info (Acres 1 )
Drinking Water Supply After

Disinfection 772 0 0 0 0 772

Drinking Water Supply After

Treatment 863 274 274 0 0 589

Fish and Other Aquatic Life 1635 669 395 0 274 966 Fish Consumption 2 1,635 393 56 0 337 1,242
Fishing 1,635 274 274 0 0 1,361
Hydroelectric Power

Generation 1,628 274 274 0 0 1,354

Industrial Process and Cooling Water Supply 1,628 274 274 0 0 1,354

Navigation 1,635 274 274 0 0 1,361 Primary Contact Recreation 1,635 274 268 0 6 1,361
Secondary Contact

Recreation 1,635 274 268 0 6 1,361

Agricultural Supply 1,635 669 669 0 0 966

1 Wetland acreage summaries were generated by the Mai ne Assessment Database (ADB).

2 All freshwaters are listed for a fish consumption advisory due to mercury (Category 4A-EPA approved R egional Mercury TMDL). The fish consumption (other) listing is for additional consumption advisories beyond than that caused by mercury (these waters also have a mercury advisory).



### Table 4-9 Individual Designated Use Support Summary for Maine Estuarine and Marine Waters

CWA Goals Designated Use Size Fully Supporting – Attaining WQ

Standards (square miles) Size Not

Supporting – Not Attaining

WQ Standards (square miles) Size Not

Attainable –

UAA

Performed (square miles)

Protect &

Enhance Ecosystems Marine Life 2,836 10 0

Protect &

Enhance

Public Health Fish Consumption 1

Shellfish Consumption 2

(excluding lobster tomalley) Shellfish Consumption 3

(lobster tomalley) Swimming (primary and secondary contact) 0
2,578

0

2,846 2,846

268

2,846

0 0

0

0

0

Social &

Economic Aquaculture

Navigation Industrial supply water Hydropower 2,846
2,846
2,846
2,846 0

0

0

0 0

0

0

0

1 Based on a statewide fish/shellfish consumption adv isory (striped bass and bluefish advisory)

2 Does not include statewide advisories for PCBs or d ioxin in lobster tomalley. Size not supporting base d on total square miles of shellfish harvest bacterial closures (proh ibited, restricted and conditionally restricted) se t by Maine Department of

Marine Resources and active as of 4/1/2011.

3 Based on a statewide consumption advisory for lobst er tomalley for waters naturally capable of support ing lobster

.2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 71 Table 4-10 Total Sizes of Category 4 and 5 Impaired Maine Rivers and Streams by Listing Cause/Stressor Type

Cause/Stressor Type Size Impaired (miles 1 )

Pathogens (E. coli)

NPS + CSO-sources 1 75 (variable miles) Aquatic Life Criteria (integrated effects including biocriteria, habitat and nutrient biological indicators) 4 08

Oxygen depletion Dissolved oxygen

BOD 4 75

464

21 Altered flow regime Fish passage barrier 3 1

4.5

Nutrients Nutrient/eutrophication, biological indicators 2 43

184 Toxic inorganics (metals) 26 Toxic organics

Dioxin Polychlorinated biphenyls 4 22

371

418

Pesticides

DDT 217

214 pH/Acidity/Caustic conditions 1

Sedimentation 15 Harmful algae blooms 8

1 River and stream mile summaries were generated by t he Maine Assessment Database (ADB).



### Table 4-11 Total Sizes of Category 4 and 5 Impaired Maine Lakes by Listing Cause/Stressor Type (Total acreage)

Cause/Stressor Type Size Impaired (acres)

Habitat Assessment (Lakes) 48,964
Methylmercury 986,952 Oxygen, Dissolved 634 Phosphorus (Total) 36,234 Secchi Disk Transparency 35,600
Turbidity 7,865



### Table 4-12 Total Sizes of Category 4 and 5 Impaired Maine Lakes by Listing Cause/Stressor Type (by Category)

Listing Category Cause/Stressor Type Size Impaired (acres) Number Impaired

4A Methylmercury 986,952 5780

Oxygen, Dissolved 634 1

Phosphorus (Total) 27,585 23 Secchi disk transparency 26,951 22

4C Habitat Assessment (Lakes) 48,964 5

Turbidity 7,865 1

5A Secchi disk transparency 8,649 2

Phosphorus (Total) 8,649 22012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 72 Table 4-13 Total Sizes of Category 4 and 5 Impaired Maine Wetlands by Listing Cause/Stressor Type

Cause/Stressor Type Size Impaired ( acres 1 )

Benthic-Macroinvertebrate Bioassessments 273.5

Benzene 212

DDT 125 Dioxin (including 2,3,7,8-TCDD) 212
Polychlorinated biphenyls 212

1 Wetland acreage summaries were generated by the Mai ne Assessment Database (ADB).



### Table 4-14 Total Sizes of Category 4 and 5 Impaired Maine Estuarine and Marine Waters by Listing Cause/Stressor Type

Cause/Stressor Type Size Impaired (square miles)

Bacteria 159 Bacteria (CSOs only) Variable Dissolved Oxygen 6 Sediment Oxygen Demand <1

Marine Life 1 Nutrients/Eutrophication Biological Indicators 2

Toxics 2,846
Metals-copper <1

PAHs 0

PCBs 2,846

Dioxins 2,846

Unknown 2



### Table 4-15 Total Sizes of Category 4 and 5 Impaired Maine Rivers and Streams by Source Category

The format of this table was updated compared to 20 10; it is now presented in keeping with the ADB.



### Source Category Size Impaired (miles 1 )
Industrial Point Source Discharge 403

Source Unknown 398

Non-Point Source 396
Agriculture 358 Municipal Point Source Discharges 164 Unspecified Urban Stormwater 92
Dam or Impoundment 58 Impervious Surface/Parking Lot Runoff 54 Post-development Erosion and Sedimentation 53
Habitat Modification - other than Hydromodification 51 Wet Weather Discharges (Point Source and Combinatio n of Stormwater, SSO or CSO) 40

RCRA Hazardous Waste Sites 38
Inappropriate Waste Disposal 26 Upstream Source 26

Flow Alterations from Water Diversions 26 Aquaculture (Permitted) 22
Airports 19 Wet Weather Discharges (Non-Point Source) 152012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 73 Source Category Size Impaired (miles 1 )

Sources Outside State Jurisdiction or Borders 9 Livestock (Grazing or Feeding Operations) 9

Landfills 9 Impacts from Abandoned Mine Lands (Inactive) 3 Illegal Dumps or Other Inappropriate Waste Disposal 3 Mine Tailings 1 Impacts from Hydrostructure Flow Regulation/modific ation 1

1 River and stream mile summaries were generated by t he Maine Assessment Database (ADB).



### Table 4-16 Total Sizes of Category 4 and 5 Impaired Maine Lakes by Source Category

Source Category Size Impaired (acres)
Atmospheric Deposition – Toxics 986,952 Crop Production (Crop Land or Dry Land) 6,889

Flow Alterations from Water Diversions 30 Impacts from Hydrostructure Flow Regulation/modific ation 48,964

Industrial Land Treatment 1,820 Internal Nutrient Recycling 11,900

Landfills 29 Livestock (Grazing or Feeding Operations) 5,093 Municipal Point Source Discharge 4288

Natural Sources 9,683 Non-irrigated Crop Production 10,532

Residential Districts 13,358 Rural (Residential Areas) 21,903 Unspecified Unpaved Road or Trail 11,535
Unspecified Urban Stormwater 11,535



### Table 4-17 Total Sizes of Category 4 and 5 Impaired Maine Lakes by Source Category (by Listing Category)

Listing Category Source Category Size Impaired (acres) Number of

Lakes

4A Atmospheric Deposition - Toxics 986,952 5780

Crop Production (Crop Land or Dry Land) 6,940 6

Flow Alterations from Water Diversions 30 1

Industrial Land Treatment 1,820 2

Internal Nutrient Recycling 11,490 7

Landfills 29 1

Livestock (Grazing or Feeding Operations) 5,018 4

Municipal Point Source Discharges 4288 1

Natural Sources 1,869 2

Non-irrigated Crop Production 10,532 5

Residential Districts 5,119 3

Rural (Residential Areas) 21,954 16

Unspecified Unpaved Road or Trail 3,296 2

Unspecified Urban Stormwater 3,296 2

4C Impacts from Hydrostructure Flow

Regulation/modification 48,964 5

Natural Sources 7,865 12012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 74 Listing Category Source Category Size Impaired (acres) Number of

Lakes

5A Crop Production (Cropland or Dryland) 410 1

Internal Nutrient Cycling 410 1

Natural 410 1

Residential Districts 8,239 1

Rural (Residential Areas) 410 1

Unspecified Unpaved Road or Trail 8,239 1

Unspecified Urban Stormwater 8,239 1



### Table 4-18 Total Sizes of Category 4 and 5 Impaired Maine Wetlands by Source Category

Source Category Size Impaired (acres 1 )
CERCLA NPL (Superfund) Sites 212 Industrial Point Source Discharge 212

RCRA Hazardous Waste Sites 212 Agriculture 125
Agriculture 125 Unspecified Urban Stormwater 54

Non-Point Source 35 Habitat Modification - other than Hydromodification 33 Impervious Surface/Parking Lot Runoff 9 Illegal Dumps or Other Inappropriate Waste Disposal 6
Inappropriate Waste Disposal 6

1 Wetland acreage summaries were generated by the Mai ne Assessment Database (ADB).



### Table 4-19 Total Sizes of Category 4 and 5 Impaired Maine Estuarine and Marine Waters by Source Category

Source Category (examples) Size Impaired (square miles)

Combined Sewer Overflows Variable
Legacy Pollutants 2,846 Municipal Point Sources / Overboard Discharge 163
Nonpoint Source 154

Urban Runoff/Storm Sewers 52

Unknown 4
Partial Impoundment <1 Sediment Oxygen Demand <12012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 75 

# R IVERS 

# / S TREAMS



# Water Classification Program

Contact: Susanne K. Meidel, DEP BLWQ, Division of E nvironmental Assessment (DEA)

Tel: (207) 441-3612 email: Susanne.K.Meidel@maine.gov

Related Website: http://www.maine.gov/dep/water/monitoring/classific ation/index.html

Maine has four water quality classes of rivers and streams: AA, A, B, and C (38 M.R.S.A., Chapter 3, Section 465). Each classificat ion assigns designated uses and water quality criteria (narrative and numeric), and may place specific restrictions on

certain activities (Table 4-1 and 4-20) such that the goal conditions of each class may

be achieved or maintained. Definitions of terms us ed in the classification are provided

in 38 M.R.S.A. Section 466.

Class AA waters are managed for their outstanding natural ecologic al, recreational, social, and scenic qualities. Direct discharge of pollutants is allowed but highly restricted. Dams and other significant human distu rbances are prohibited.

Class A waters are managed for high quality with limited human di sturbance allowed. Direct discharges are allowed but highly restricted . Physical and chemical

characteristics should be similar to natural condit ions.

Class B waters are general-purpose waters and are managed to atta in good physical, chemical and biological water quality. Well-treate d discharges with ample dilution are

allowed.

Class C waters are managed to attain at least the swimmable-fisha ble goals of the federal Clean Water Act, including protection of sp awning for indigenous fish species. Aquatic life standards require maintenance of the s tructure and function of the biological community.

Table 4-20 Maine Water Quality Criteria for Classif ication of Fresh Surface Waters (38 MRSA §465)

Dissolved

Oxygen

Numeric

Criteria Bacteria

( E. coli )

Numeric

Criteria Habitat

Narrative

Criteria Aquatic Life (Biological)

Narrative Criteria

Class AA as naturally

occurs as naturally

occurs Free flowing

and natural Direct discharge of pollutants is allowed but

highly restricted; as naturally occurs **

Class A 7 ppm;

75% saturation as naturally

occurs Natural Direct discharges are allowed but highly
restricted; as naturally occurs **

Class B 7 ppm;

75% saturation 64/100 ml

(g.m. * ) or

236/100 ml (inst. * ) Unimpaired Discharges shall not cause adverse impact to aquatic life in that the receiving waters shall be of sufficient quality to support all aquatic species indigenous to the receiving water without detrimental changes to the resident biological community . **2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 76 Dissolved Oxygen

Numeric

Criteria Bacteria

( E. coli )

Numeric

Criteria Habitat

Narrative

Criteria Aquatic Life (Biological)

Narrative Criteria

Class C 5 ppm;

60% saturation 6.5 ppm (monthly average) at 22°

and 24°F 126/100 ml

(g.m. * ) or

236/100 ml (inst. * ) Habitat for

fish and other aquatic

life Discharges may cause some changes to aquatic life, provided that the receiving waters shall be of sufficient quality to support all species of fish indigenous to the receiving

waters and maintain the structure and function of the resident biological community

. **

* "g.m." means geometric mean and "inst." means ins tantaneous level

** Numeric criteria in Chapter 579, Classification Attainment Evaluation Using Biological Criteria for Rivers and Streams



### Maine law requires that once every three years, the Department review the classification system and related standards and mak e recommendations to the Board of Environmental Protection for any needed changes in the water quality classifications assigned to specific waterbodies. A major review of water quality standards and classifications was completed in 2009 . The Department conducted statewide workshops and direct mail and telephone o utreach to obtain public input and to solicit proposals for consideration to change th e management classification assigned to specific waterbodies. The Board held h earings that resulted in recommendations to the Maine State Legislature for the upgrade of part or all of 16 rivers and streams and one marine waterbody. The B oard recommended and the Legislature also approved changes to statutory lang uage to clarify the classifications
of 6 other waterbodies, and to conduct a Use Attain ability Analysis on 1 impaired stream to determine its highest attainable goal con dition. The current distribution of waters assigned to these four water quality classes is summarized in Table 4-21:

Table 4-21 Percent Distribution of River/Stream Wat er Classes

Class Percent of Major*

Mainstem River Miles Percent of Total River

and Stream Miles

AA 27.5 % 5.6 %

A 22.3 % 43.8 %

B 29.6 % 49.2 %

C 20.6 % 1.4 %

* Major mainstem rivers are rivers that have a wate rshed of >500 square miles.



### In 2011, the classification of 1 waterbody was chan ged and in 2012, ambient water quality criteria (human health criteria for inorgan ic arsenic, acrolein and phenol; aquatic life criteria for acrolein, diazanon, nonyl phenol) as included in Chapter 584, Surface Water Quality Criteria for Toxic Pollutants were revised or expanded.2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 77 

# Summary of Statewide River and Stream Attainment St atus

Contact: Susanne K. Meidel, DEP BLWQ, Division of E nvironmental Assessment (DEA)

Tel: (207) 441-3612 email: Susanne.K.Meidel@maine.gov

The Integrated Assessment Water Quality Report to C ongress requires the assignment of each Assessment Unit (AU) into one of five categories (Section 4-1, Assessment Methodology). A water is determined to be impaired if one or more of the uses assigned by its classification is not attained , as determined by the criteria assigned to that water class. An overall use attai nment summary is provided in

Tables 4-6 and 4-22. The 2012 use attainment asses sment reports on AUs amounting to 31,298 miles of rivers and streams tha t are tracked in the Assessment Database (ADB). Information on the status of indiv idual AUs may be found in Listings on Individual Waters, Appendix II, Categories 1-5. A spatial representation of many AUs can be viewed using this Google Earth Project ( note that the project is under construction): www.maine.gov/dep/gis/datamaps/lawb_integrated_repo rt/lawb_integrated_report.km

z

Assessment units (AUs) can be listed for different impairments in different Categories (3-5). For example, an AU may be in Category 4-A f or a contact recreation impairment due to the 2009 Statewide Bacteria TMDL; simultaneously, it may be in Category 5-D for legacy pollutants. The mileage to tals shown in Table 4-22 are for ‘single category’ reporting, meaning each AU is onl y counted once, namely in the highest category it is in. For the example above, the AU would only be counted under Category 5.

Table 4-22 Summary of Changes to Surface Water Asse ssment Categories – 2010 to 2012*

Rivers and Streams

31,215= Total Miles Assessed in 2010

31,298=Total Miles Assessed in 2012

20 10 Miles in Category** % of Total 20 10

Assessed Miles 201 2 Miles in

Category*** % of Total 201 2

Assessed Miles % Change

'10-‘12 Change in

Miles '10 - '12
Category 1 4,338 13.9 4,338 13.9 0 0 Category 2 25,394 81.4 25,371 81.1 -0.3 -23 Category 3 314 1.0 383 1.2 0.2 69 Category 4 446 1.4 273 0.9 -0.6 -173 Category 5 719 2.3 933 3.0 0.7 214

* This table is a partial duplicate of Table 2-1 in Chapter 2; it appears twice for convenience

* * Single-Category Reporting miles, as generated by f inal 2010 cycle Maine ADB

*** Single-Category Reporting miles as generated by 201 2 cycle Maine ADB



### Category 1 ( Appendix II Category 1 ). The 2010 assessment assigned 4,338 miles (14%) of rivers and streams to Category 1 (fully at taining all uses other than statewide mercury advisory as explained in Category 5C below) . The Department has determined through monitoring and evaluation that l arge areas of the state should be included in this category where there is significan t protection afforded by either state or private conservation efforts. Maine is fortunat e to have entire sub-watersheds where there is little to no human habitation, few r oads and only minimal disturbance2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 78 

### (typically well managed forestry operations that ar e well buffered to protect water quality) or significant conservation ownership.

Category 2 ( Appendix II Category 2 ). The 2012 assessment assigned 25,371 miles (81%) of rivers and streams to Category 2 (fully at taining all uses other than statewide mercury advisory as explained in Category 5-C below). Two waterbodi es totaling 3.34 miles were delisted from Category 4-A to Category 2 due to new data showing attainment of contact recreation criteria. The map ping of a number of assessment units in this category, and resulting adjustment in unit length, caused a slight decrease in total mileage in this category compared to 2010.

Category 3 ( Appendix II Category 3 ). The 2012 assessment assigned 383 miles (1%) of rivers and streams to Category 3 (insufficient i nformation to determine attainment). Most of these segments have been assigned to Catego ry 3 because of inconclusive or conflicting monitoring data. Ten new segments tota ling 160 miles were added to Category 3 in 2012 because an initial evaluation of potential non-attainment requires re-sampling to confirm. One of the 10 segments (96 miles) is also in Category 5-D, bringing the total number of miles added in 2012 to Category 3 only to 64. The remaining 5 miles that were added to Category 3 in 2012 are a result of mapping

corrections.

Category 4 (Appendix II Category 4 ). Category 4 impaired waters do not require the development of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL). T he 2012 assessment assigned 273 miles (1%) of rivers and streams to Category 4. As explained below, increases in mileage from 2010 to 2012 are primarily attributabl e to the approval of a Statewide TMDL while decreases in mileage are primarily attri butable to the correction in the ADB of the single-listing Category for several wate rbodies. Waters in Category 4 are placed into one of three subcategories:

 4-A for waters that already have a TMDL that has b een approved by EPA

• Segments totaling 147 miles are listed in this sub category.

• 30 new segments totaling 72 miles have been added to Category 4-A as compared to the 2010 cycle. All of these waterbodies have aquat ic life use impairments (for one or more of the following causes: DO, benthic macroinve rtebrates, algae/periphyton and habitat) and have been moved from Category 5-A to C ategory 4-A for these impairments due to their inclusion in the Maine Statewide % Imp ervious Cover TMDL, approved by US EPA in September 2012. Three of these segments totaling 13 miles are also listed in Category 5-A or 5-D and their mileages are thus not included in the Category 4-A single listing numbers shown in Table 4-22, bringin g the total number of miles added in 2012 to Category 4-A only due to TMDL approval to 5 9.

• For 3 segments that were already in Category 4-A, a new aquatic life use impairment [for Periphyton (Aufwuchs) Indicator Bioassessments ] was added that is expected to be addressed by the existing TMDL. Two of these 3 seg ments were already in Category 4- A, i.e. these new listings did not affect the total mileage in this category. One segment is also in Category 5-D and thus not included in the C ategory 4-A mileage.

 4-B for waters where there is an enforceable mecha nism in place to bring the water into attainment (e.g. new or renewed wastewater discharg e license; court order, etc.)

• Segments totaling 94 miles are listed in this subc ategory.

• 5 segments totaling 94 miles have been moved into Category 4-B due to the development of enforceable mechanisms to bring the waters into attainment. Of these segments, only 1 (14 miles) is solely listed in Cat egory 4-B, i.e. only 14 miles were added to the Category 4 mileage total due to new pe rmits.2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 79 • A number of segments were inadvertently placed in Category 4-B instead of 5-D in the ADB in 2010, resulting in a significant overestimat e (by ~240 miles) of the mileage in this category.

 4-C for waters where there is no pollutant involve d in the impairment problem

• Segments totaling 31 miles are listed in this subc ategory.

• No new segments were added to 4-C in 2012



### Category 5 ( Appendix II Category 5 )

. Impaired waters that require the development of a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) determination. T he 2012 assessment assigned 933 miles (3%) of rivers and streams to Category 5 (impaired for one or more uses as well as statewide mercury advisory as explained in Category 5-C below). As explained below, increases in mileage from 2010 to 2012 are p rimarily attributable to the correction in the ADB of the single-listing Categor y for several waterbodies while decreases in mileage are primarily attributable to the approval of a Statewide TMDL while. Waters in Category 4 are placed into one of four subcategories:

 5-A for waters impaired by pollutants; a priority for TMDL development

• 30 segments totaling 72 miles have been moved from Category 5-A to Category 4-A due to their inclusion in the Maine Statewide % Impervi ous Cover TMDL, approved by US EPA in September 2012. Two of these segments total ing 8 miles continue to be also listed in Category 5-A and their mileages are thus retained in this Category, bringing the total number of miles removed from this Category in 2012 due to TMDL approval to 64.

• 5 segments totaling 94 miles have been moved from Category 5-A to Category 4-B due to the development of enforceable mechanisms to bri ng the waters into attainment. Of these segments, only 1 (14 miles) has no other Cate gory 5 listing, i.e. only 14 miles were removed from Category 5-A total due to new per mits.

• 5 new segments totaling 116 miles were added to Ca tegory 5-A in 2012 due to new monitoring data showing impairments.

• 2 new segments totaling 18 miles have been moved f rom Category 5-A to Category 5-D.

 5-B for waters impaired by bacteria contamination only

• 2 new segments have been added to Category 5-B in 2012 totaling 9.2 miles.

 5-C for waters impaired by atmospheric deposition of mercury (Inactive Category due to EPA approved Regional Mercury TMDL)

• All freshwaters in Maine have an advisory for the consumption of fish due to the presence of mercury presumed to be from atmospheric deposition. A Regional Mercury TMDL was approved by US EPA making these waters Cat egory 4-A.

• This Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Asses sment Report does not consider this statewide advisory in establishing other category l istings.

• The advisory is based on probability data that a s tream, river, or lake may contain some fish that exceed the advisory action level (Maine u ses a lower action level of 0.2 mg/kg (edible portion) than that established by the USEPA ). Any freshwater may contain both contaminated and uncontaminated fish depending on s ize, age, and species occurrence in that water. The advisory applies to all freshwa ters because it may be impossible for someone eating a fish to be able to tell where the fish originated and whether or not it has a high level of mercury.

 5-D for waters impaired by the residuals of “legac y” activities

• 2 new segments totaling 18 miles have been moved f rom Category 5-A to Category 5-D.

• A number of segments was inadvertently placed in C ategory 4-B instead of 5-D in the ADB in 2010, resulting in a significant underestima te (by ~240 miles) of the mileage in this category.2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 80 

### Number of Segments that have been Delisted

Due to EPA approval of the Statewide % Impervious C over TMDL, the aquatic life use impairments (due to one or more of the following ca uses: DO, benthic macroinvertebrates, algae/periphyton and habitat) o f 30 river and stream segments have been removed from Category 5-A and placed in C ategory 4-A for 2012. Two waters have been delisted to Category 2 due to newe r data showing water quality standards attainment. The aquatic life use impairm ents [due to DO and nutrient/eutrophication biological indicators) of 5 river and stream segments have been removed from Category 5-A and placed in Category 4- B. See Table 8-5 in Chapter 8 for a complete listing of all 2012 delistings.

As with any assessment of this kind, the identifica tion of impaired waters or delisted waters cannot be considered complete but rather is a reflection of the findings at a particular point in time, relative to the level of monitoring effort expended by the agency and other cooperating contributors.



# Listing Causes, Stressors and Sources of Impairment

Cause and stressor information for rivers and strea ms is provided in Table 4-10. Sources of impairment are provided in Table 4-15. Maine DEP uses the EPA Assessment Database (ADB) to track changes in water quality for Maine rivers, streams, lakes and wetlands. The ADB is enabling i ncreasingly accurate and consistent tracking of causes, stressors and source s as the database is populated and updated from cycle to cycle.

Causes (Table 4-10): The greatest number of impaired miles (636) is due to toxic contamination, including legacy pollutants such as DDT, dioxin and PCBs. For most mainstem river segments that are affected by pulp a nd paper mill discharges, dioxins have been listed in Category 4-B since 2004. Measur eable differences above and below sources of dioxin are no longer detectable. However, those same segments are listed in Category 5-D for legacy sources of PCB co ntamination found in fish tissue.

Non-attainment of aquatic life criteria, as determi ned by observations of biological effects, accounts for 408 miles of impairment. Most of these miles were assessed via benthic macroinvertebrate biocriteria although in 2 012 the number of segments also assessed via the algae/periphyton community increas ed substantially from 7 to 28 segments (8 in Category 3, 12 in Category 4-A, 8 in Category 5-A. Oxygen depletion

accounts for 464 miles. Other notable causes inclu de nutrients (243 miles) and pathogens (175 miles).

Sources (Table 4-15): Atmospheric deposition of mercury affects all wate rs of the State and is the largest single source of pollution . Industrial point source discharges, unknown sources and non-point sources (NPS) are of almost equal importance, each affecting approximately 400 river miles. General ag ricultural NPS sources affect 358

miles.

It is important to understand that miles attributed to causes and sources in Tables 4-10 and 4-15 may be listed more than once if a waterbod y is subjected to several different types of disturbance.2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 81 

# Main Stems of Major Rivers

Most of the mainstem rivers are in good condition a nd are attaining their classification, which is mostly Class B or C 2 

### . Significant segments of the St. John, Allagash, E ast and West Branches of the Penobscot, St. Croix, and Kenn ebec Rivers are Class AA and A. The primary impairment issue on the larger rivers i s non-attainment of the Fish Consumption use, with segments of the Androscoggin, Kennebec, Penobscot, Salmon Falls and Sebasticook Rivers listed in either Categ ory 4 or Category 5. Tissue monitoring studies have found legacy PCB and dioxin contamination in mainstem rivers. Needed monitoring for other issues has had to be re-scheduled for some mainstem river segments (e.g., Sandy River, lower A ndroscoggin River) due to a variety of reasons.

Two Class C segments of the Penobscot River (West B ranch Penobscot River

between Millinocket Stream and East Branch Penobsco t River; mainstem Penobscot River to the confluence with the Mattawamkeag River ) were moved directly from Category 2 to Category 4-B in the 2010 reporting cy cle for aquatic life use impairments. Analysis of 2007 monitoring data duri ng that reporting cycle documented non-attainment of dissolved oxygen criteria and pro blems with nutrient/eutrophication biological indicators. The Board of Environmental Protection issued an Administrative Consent Agreement on January 17, 2008 requiring red uctions in phosphorus loading from one upstream mill thus establishing enforceabl e controls for these segments and enabling the delisting to Category 4-B.

In addition to the existing two Category 5-A listin gs for dissolved oxygen and nutrient/ eutrophication biological indicators on the mainste m of the Penobscot River between the Mattawamkeag River and the Piscataquis River, t hree segments between the Piscataquis River and Reeds Brook (where water qual ity classification changes from Class B to marine Class SC) were placed into Catego ry 5-A for the same impairments in the 2010 reporting cycle. In May of 2011, new M EPDES permits incorporating phosphorus discharge limits for all mills on the fr eshwater portion of the river were issued, putting in place water quality protection b ased on actual waste load allocations. As a result of this permitting action, the five mai nstem segments are being moved to Category 4-B in the current reporting cycle. The De partment is presently conducting ongoing ambient monitoring along all segments covered by the permit to assess the effectiveness of the new discharge limits. 2011 wa s the first year that monitoring was
conducted; no non-attainment was measured.

Data submitted by the Houlton Band of Maliseet Indi ans (HBMI) Water Resources program documented high algal growth and large diur nal swings in dissolved oxygen on the Meduxnekeag River mainstem below Houlton. Do wnstream portions of the river (below the confluence with the South Branch Meduxne keag River) are currently in Category 4A due to US EPA approval of a TMDL in 200 1 to address elevated phosphorus. The river upstream of the South Branch has been lis ted in Category 3 since the 2010 reporting cycle and data collection activities are ongoing. According to the 2010 water quality data report from the HBMI ge neral trends for dissolved oxygen and total phosphorus along the mainstem of the Medu xnekeag River followed patterns similar to past years.

One of Maine's Combined Sewer Overflow (CSO) commun ities (Rockland) has completed its CSO abatement projects and no longer has permitted CSOs. CSOs

2 

### Note that all freshwaters in Maine are subject to a statewide fish consumption advisory due to “Impairment caused by atmospheric deposition of mer cury” (see page 58, above).2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 82 

### continue to occur on segments of other major rivers . In 2009, the Department completed a statewide bacteria TMDL that establishe s a restoration and management plan for all sources of bacteria, including CSOs.

In 2010 an addendum to the 2005 Final Androscoggin River TMDL (Gulf Island Pond and Livermore Falls Impoundment), and modifications to the Water Quality Certification of the Gulf Island Deer Rips Hydro pr oject and MEPDES permits for two pulp and paper companies, have resulted in revised discharge limits of BOD, TSS, and phosphorus and improved oxygenation of Gulf Island Pond in the Androscoggin River. Consequently, the water quality has been improved. While water quality still does not meet Standards due to sediment oxygen demand from h istoric discharges, new permits and certification issued in late 2012 are e xpected to result in attainment within the permit period. Due to this permitting action, this segment was moved to Category 4-B in the current reporting cycle.

In 2009, the Lower Androscoggin River (Lisbon Falls to Brunswick) was proposed for upgrade from Class C to Class B. The Board of Envi ronmental Protection declined to recommend the upgrade, as did the Maine State Legis lature. However, a Resolve was passed by the Legislature directing the Department to accelerate monitoring and modeling on this segment in the interest of reviewi ng this proposal in the future. A water quality field survey was completed in the sum mer of 2010. A water quality model was developed and predicted that the Class B criterion could not be met under critical water quality conditions. The Maine State Legislature’s Joint Committee for

Natural Resources and the Environment recommended t hat the bill ought not to pass. Also concerning the lower Androscoggin River, the m ainstem segment between the Pejepscot Dam and the Brunswick Dam, is listed in C ategory 4C (Impaired by nonpollutant). Information provided to the Department from the Department of Marine Resources indicates the segment fails to support an indigenous species of fish, the American shad, as required by statute. The dam at Brunswick and the fish passage device repeatedly fail to allow passage of a suffic ient number of shad to establish a sustainable population in the river above the dam. This facility is a FERC licensed facility with a requirement for fish passage as par t of a State-adopted restoration plan for this species.

On the lower Presumpscot River a 1998 TMDL submitta l noted that both the water quality model and a 1993 field survey indicate that minor non-attainment of class B dissolved oxygen (DO) criteria (0.2 to 0.3 ppm unde r criteria) occurs in the upper Presumpscot River at the Little Falls, Mallison Fal ls, and Saccarappa dam impoundments. It was concluded that the large amoun t of effort required for implementing a TMDL in these reaches was not warran ted. It was recommended that additional data collection in the early morning hou rs (before 8 AM) occur and if nonattainment continued, a TMDL should be implemented for non-point sources.

This non-attainment was addressed in the 2007 Water Quality Certification (WQC) for the five dams of the “Presumpscot River Hydro Proje cts” owned and operated by S. D. Warren. A recommendation was made for increased sp illage from the Dundee and Gambo dams, as well as monitoring requirements when water temperatures in the Gambo impoundment exceeded 22oC before 8 AM. If the increased spillage does not maintain class B standards for DO, S. D. Warren is required to implement other

measures.
S.D. Warren has submitted annual reports indicating few excursions for each of the years 2008 through 2011. From these data it is evi dent that non-attainment is associated with low flow discharges from Sebago Lak e through the Eel Weir dam. On2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 83 

### August 31, 2011 the Department approved the applica tion for Water Quality

Certification under section 401 of the Clean Water Act of Eel Weir Hydro Project, in which S. D. Warren proposes to increase minimum flo ws from 270 cfs to 408 cfs from June 1 to September 30 in order to maintain DO leve ls in the Presumpscot River. That WQC is currently under appeal to the Maine Superior Court regarding flow regulations impacts on lake levels and fish passage.



# Toxics

D IOXIN 

# M ONITORING 

# P ROGRAM

Contact: Barry Mower, DEP BLWQ, Division of Environ mental Assessment (DEA)

Tel: (207) 215-0291 email: Barry.F.Mower@maine.gov

Related Website: http://www.maine.gov/dep/water/monitoring/toxics/

• The Dioxin Monitoring Program was incorporated int o the Surface Water Ambient Toxics (SWAT) monitoring program in 2007. Please r efer to the most recent SWAT report for latest information on this subject.



# S URFACE 

# W ATER 

# A MBIENT 

# T OXICS 

# (SWAT) M ONITORING 

# P ROGRAM

Contact: Barry Mower, DEP BLWQ, Division of Environ mental Assessment (DEA)

Tel: (207) 215-0291 email: Barry.F.Mower@maine.gov

Related Website: http://www.maine.gov/dep/water/monitoring/toxics/sw at/

Please refer to the website for annual reports on t his subject. Below are the executive

summaries for 2009 and 2010.

2009:

• Thirty-nine stations were assessed for the conditi on of the benthic macroinvertebrate community. Twenty-nine of the thi rty-nine stations attained the aquatic life standards of their assigned class.

• Samples of fish from the Androscoggin, Kennebec, P enobscot, Salmon Falls, St. Croix, and Sebasticook rivers generally exceeded th e MCDC’s fish tissue action levels (FTAL) for PCBs, used for setting fish consu mption advisories, at most

stations.

• There are fish consumption advisories for several Aroostook County rivers and streams issued by the MCDC because of residuals of DDT used decades ago. Samples of trout from eight of ten Aroostook County rivers and streams sampled in 2009 significantly exceeded MCDC’s FTAL used for se tting the advisories.

• Validation of use of a new method of mercury analy sis with the University of Maine shows promise of quicker and less expensive monitor ing of fish tissue mercury
levels, which will allow collection of more data fo r use in review of Maine’s Statewide Fish Consumption Advisory for mercury.2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 84 

### 2010:

• Forty-two stations were assessed for the condition of the benthic macroinvertebrate community. Twenty-seven stations attained the aquatic life standards of their assigned class.

• Dioxin concentrations measured in fish from the We st Branch of the Sebasticook
River were lower than when last measured, but still exceed MCDC’s Fish Tissue Action Level (FTAL). The dioxin concentrations in fish from the St. Croix River above Woodland are below the FTAL; dioxin-like copl anar PCBs were not measured in 2010, but in previous years the additio n of the PCBs resulted in an

exceedance of the FTAL.

• Fish captured from the Androscoggin River, Penobsc ot River below Millinocket, Presumpscot River in Gorham and Westbrook, and Seba sticook River at Newport

and Burnham exceeded MCDC’s FTAL for dioxins.

• A study of the Little Androscoggin River below the wastewater discharge from South Paris found no evidence of toxicity of the se diments to bottom dwelling organisms or of the river water to fish species, de spite repeated exceedances of the copper limit in their discharge permit.

• A project funded at the University of Maine develo ped a new non-lethal method of detecting exposure of fish to organic contaminants using fish scales.



# Aquatic Life Monitoring

B IOLOGICAL 

# M ONITORING OF 

# R IVERS AND 

# S TREAMS

Contact: Leon Tsomides, DEP BLWQ, Division of Environmental Assessment (DEA )

Tel: (207) 215-4787 email: Leon.Tsomides@maine.gov

Related Website: http://www.maine.gov/dep/water/monitoring/biomonito ring/index.html

The Biological Monitoring Program assesses the heal th of rivers, streams, and wetlands by evaluating the composition of the resid ent biological communities. In the 1980s, the Maine Legislature passed the Water Class ification Law and made an initial assignment of each river and stream reach in the st ate to one of four established classes (AA, A, B, and C Table 4-17). Subsequent Wa ter Quality Reclassification initiatives since 1986 have reassigned waterbodies to more appropriate (usually higher quality) management classifications Class AA and Class A have the same aquatic life criteria and biological expectations (“as naturally occurs”). Data collected in accordance with Maine’s biocriteria protocol are an alyzed to predict the likelihood of a waterbody attaining the aquatic life criteria of it s assigned class (i.e. AA/A, B, and C). In 2003, MDEP adopted numeric biocriteria in rule C h. 579 (for rivers and streams) which describes the process used to make aquatic li fe decisions using the benthic macroinvertebrate community. MDEP recently complet ed biological assessment methods for benthic algal communities of wadeable s treams and rivers with rocky

substrates. MDEP also monitors wetland macroinverte brate and algal communities, and has developed provisional biological criteria f or wetland macroinvertebrates. MDEP developed statistical models (linear discrimin ant functions) to predict aquatic life use attainment based on stream algal and wetland ma croinvertebrate community data. The models for stream algae and wetland macr oinvertebrates have not yet been implemented. For the 2012 Integrated Report, Depar tment biologists determined attainment of the narrative aquatic life criteria a lready contained in the Water2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 85 

### Classification Program (38 MRSA §465) by using expe rt judgment to evaluate the structure and function of the stream algal (Appendi x II) and wetland macroinvertebrate (Appendix IV) communities. Chapter 579 will be ame nded to include the stream algal and wetland macroinvertebrate models, following sta ndard public review protocols, after they have been adequately tested. More detail ed information on wetland monitoring and assessment is described in Chapter 5 . Biomonitoring station locations and associated biological and physical data can be found at http://www.maine.gov/dep/water/monitoring/biomonito ring/data.htm

.



# R EPORTS OF 

# F ISH 

# K ILLS

Contact: Barry Mower, DEP BLWQ, Division of Environmental Assessment (DEA )

Tel: (207) 215-0291 email: Barry.F.Mower@maine.gov

The Department of Environmental Protection document s all pollution-caused fish kills. For the 2009-10 reporting period, there were no doc umented fish kills due to pollution

effects.



# Achieving Comprehensive Assessment of All Streams: Probability-based Design Monitoring

Contact: Leon Tsomides, DEP BLWQ, Division of Envir onmental Assessment (DEA)

Tel: (207) 215-4787 email: Leon.Tsomides@maine.gov

• Please refer to the 2006 report for information ab out streams. There have been no changes since the 2006 report.

• Biological Monitoring Program staff participated i n the design and planning for the National Wetland Condition Assessment (NWCA), and c oordinated sampling efforts in Maine during the summer of 2011. Additi onal information about the NWCA is found in Chapter 5 of this report. Biomoni toring staff previously participated in planning for national surveys of wa deable streams and large rivers.



# L AKES 

# / P ONDS

Contact: Linda Bacon, DEP BLWQ, Division of Environ mental Assessment (DEA),

Lake Assessment Section

Tel: (207) 441-0462 email: Linda.C.Bacon@maine.gov

Related Website: www.maine.gov/dep/water/lakes/index.html

This section of the 2012 Integrated Report provides an update to information contained in the 2006, 2008 & 2010 Integrated Repor ts, links to which can be found

at: http://www.maine.gov/dep/water/monitoring/305b

Information included in the 2006 report (pages 75-9 1) includes:

Physical Extent of lakes Statutory Classification of lakes

Attainment of Classification2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 86 

### Attainment Evaluation Criteria for each Designated Use How Attainment Status relates to Listing Categories Past use of Probability-based Designs Summary of Listing Category changes for 2006 Criteria Used to Change Listing Status An overview of Maine’s Invasive Aquatic Plant progr am Economic Contribution of Lakes to Maine.

Additional topics required under Section 314 addres sed in the 2006 report include:

Maine’s definition of Significant Lakes Trophic Status of Significant Publicly Owned Lakes Lake Rehabilitation Techniques

Acid Effects on Lakes

Toxics in Maine lakes Trend Analyses and Climate Considerations.

A number of tables reappear in this report at the r equest of EPA Region I staff.

Monitoring of Maine lakes continues to include reli ance on a strong volunteer-based program, the Maine Volunteer Lake Monitoring Progra m ( www.mainevolunteerlakemonitors.org ) as well as both targeted and probability based monitoring performed by state staff. The Lake Asse ssment Section participated in a US EPA Region I probability-based lake monitoring e ffort in 2006 as well as the National Lake Assessment (NLA) effort in 2007. The results of the NLA survey help to put the overall condition of Maine lakes in perspec tive nationally and add additional data on the lakes visited by the EPA-State teams. T he NLA reinforced the conclusions that our lightly developed watersheds continue to s upport lakes in full attainment of most designated uses.



# A TTAINMENT OF 

# C LASSIFICATION

The state designated a subset of the total populati on of lakes as ‘Significant Lakes’ as requested by EPA under Section 314 in the early 199 0s. Table 4-23 summarizes numbers and acreages for all lakes having an identi fication number as well as the subset of Significant Lakes.

Table 4-23 "All" and "Significant" Lake Category In formation

Maine Lake Population S ummary

Number Acres All Lakes 5,780 (100%) 986,952 (100%) Significant Lakes 2,313 (40%) 958,977 (97%)



### Designated uses actively assessed to determine clas sification attainment status are: Aquatic Life Support, Fish Consumption, Recreation In/On, and Drinking Water Supply (after disinfection/treatment). Table 4-24 summari zes how lake attainment status relates to specific Listing Categories used in the 2012 report.2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 87 Table 4-24 Summary of Listing Categories and Subcat egories used in the 2012 Assessment of

Maine lakes.

Listing Category Category Summary

1 Attaining all standards

2 Attaining some standards; assumed to attain other s

3 Attaining some standards; Insufficient / no data / info to

determine if standard(s) are met for use that may b e impaired
4a TMDL complete (includes Regional Hg Deposition T MDL)

4b Expected to meet standards

4c Not impaired by a pollutant

5a TMDL needed



### Brief summaries of lakes by Listing Category follow . Lake specific changes are included in Chapter 8 as well as in the Appendix.

Category 1: Lake waters attaining all designated u ses and water quality standards, and no use is threatened.

For the purposes of this assessment, lakes having n o population in their direct

watersheds have been listed in ‘Category 1, Attaining all standards’, with the exception of four lakes which are listed in categor y 4c, in non-attainment of the Aquatic Life Use (habitat) due to non-pollutant (hy drologic modification). The number of lakes listed in Category 1 is 2,857, totaling 29 5,443 acres. Waters are summarized by the 10-digit HUC (Hydrologic Unit Code) within w hich they are located (Appendix III, Category 1). No lakes have moved in or out of this Listing Category since the 2008 reporting cycle.

Category 2: Lake waters attaining some of the desi gnated use(s), no use is threatened, and insufficient data or no data and in formation is available to determine if the remaining uses are attained or thr eatened (with presumption that all uses are attained).

The Department is highly confident that these water s attain the following designated uses: drinking water (after disinfection / treatmen t), recreation in/on the water, fishing (excluding fish consumption), and as habitat for fi sh and other aquatic life. Category 2
contains 2,894 lakes or 606,945 lake acres. Waters are summarized by the 10-digit HUC within which they are located (Appendix III, Ca tegory 2). Four lakes (709 acres were moved from Categories 4a and 5a into this cate gory because additional data or information indicates that they are in attainment o f some designated uses and presumed to be in attainment of the others.

Category 3: Lake waters with insufficient data and information to determine if designated uses are attained (with presumption that one or more uses may be impaired).

Currently there are no lakes in Category 3. The on e that in 2010 had been listed in Category 3 has been moved to Category 5a. This lak e (Cochnewagon Pond) has a deteriorating trophic state and is no longer in att ainment of ‘aquatic life’ and ‘primary

contact’ criteria. This lake was treated with alum nearly 25 years ago which improved water quality for about one decade; data collected over the last 17 years suggest that2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 88 

### the lake has slowly returned to its former trophic state. A sediment core has been obtained to determine the historic trophic state so the Department can better establish a trophic target.

Category 4: Lake waters that are impaired or threa tened for one or more designated uses, but do not require development of a TMDL.

There are currently 27 lakes covering 75,915 acres listed in Category 4. These lakes fall into two subcategories: waters on which TMDLs have been completed (4A) and waters with impairments not caused by a pollutant ( 4C). Category 4A contains 22 lakes totaling 26,951 acres. Two lakes are now in attainment of their classification and have been moved to Category 2 since 2010.

Five lakes (48,964 acres) continue to be listed in Category 4C, lake water impairment not caused by a pollutant. All of these lakes are in non-attainment of aquatic life (habitat) standards due to hydromodification (drawd own).

Note: For the 2008, 2010 and 2012 reporting cycles, the 4A category includes all freshwaters in Maine that were listed in previous c ycles in a narrative Category 5-C “Impairment caused by atmospheric deposition of mer cury” due to the Statewide fish consumption advisory due to mercury. On December 2 0, 2007 US EPA approved a Regional Mercury TMDL.

Category 5: Lake waters that are impaired or threa tened for one or more designated uses by a pollutant(s), TMDL development is required.

Three sub categories have been designated under Cat egory 5; however lakes have been listed in only one.

Category 5A includes 2 lakes (8,649 acres) which ar e designated as ‘Significant’ (lakes impaired by pollutants, and require a TMDL t o be conducted by the State of Maine). This total reflects the movement of 2 lake s (544 acres) to Category 2 and addition of 1 lake from Category 3 (410 acres). Ap pendix III, Category 5A indicates target dates for TMDL completions. Table 4-25 summ arizes individual use support for the lakes in Category 5A.

Table 4-25 Individual Use Support Summary for Lake (acres) in Category 5a (TMDL Needed)

Designated Use Non

Attainment Attainment

Drinking Water Supply (after disinfection/treatment ) 0 8,649 Aquatic Life use Support 8,649 0 Fishing (other than fish consumption covered in Cat . 4a) 0 8,649

Recreation In / On 8,649 0 Navigation, Hydropower, Agriculture & Industrial Su pply 0 8,649



### Causes (or Stressors) resulting in non-attainment a nd Sources are summarized for all impaired waters in Tables 4-11 and 4-16 and Tables 4-12 and 4-17 provide Causes / Sources organized by Listing Category.

For more information on Lake TMDL projects:

Contact: Dave Halliwell, DEP BLWQ, Division of Envi ronmental Assessment (DEA)2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 89 

### Tel: (207) 287-3901 email: David.Halliwell@maine.gov

Related Website: www.maine.gov/dep/water/monitoring/tmdl



# V ARIOUS 

# T ABLES AND 

# A DDITIONAL 

# U PDATES 

# R EGARDING 

# M AINE


# L AKES

Section 314 requires a summary of trophic classific ation for Maine's ‘Significant’ lakes. This summary is compiled using the numerical criter ia in Table 4-4. Table 4-26 summarizes the trophic distribution of Maine Lakes.

Table 4-26 Trophic Status of Maine Lakes

Trophic Category Significant Lakes All Lakes

Number Acres Number Acres

Assessed 1,743 927,330 1,923 929,966

Dystrophic 2 34 2 34

Eutrophic 593 150,955 670 151,477

Mesotrophic 1,024 664,852 1,127 667,087

Oligotrophic 125 111,500 129 111,547

Unknown 569 31,636 3,852 56,807



### Table 4-27 summarizes techniques used to rehabilita te lakes.

Table 4-27 Lake Rehabilitation Technique Summary (S ection 319 Projects)

Rehabilitation Technique

Watershed Treatments

BMPs associated with Public & Private Road Man agement

BMPs associated with Shoreline Erosion Control / Bank Stabilization Other Lake Protection/Restoration Techniques Public Information/Education Program/Activitie s Fish Removal Pilot Project



### Section 314 also requires reporting Acid Effects on lakes. Maine is fortunate to be located a considerable distance from many sources o f atmospheric deposition that

result in acidification of surface waters. Some sm aller headwater and seepage lakes having naturally low pH are likely slightly more ac idic due to such atmospheric inputs but not to levels that have conclusively altered th e biota or caused Maine to consider mitigation activities. Recovery from acidic deposi tion is apparent in lakes in the northeast, including sensitive populations. Regio nally, it is estimated that approximately half of the lakes determined to be ac idic in the 1980s are now nonacidic (pH > 5). In Maine’s high elevation lakes, only four of the 12 lakes acidic in the 1980s were acidic in 2009. An important change in aquatic chemistry coincident with decreased acidic deposition is increased concentrat ions of dissolved organic carbon (DOC) in recovering surface waters across the north ern hemisphere. This result has led to a shift in the source of acidity from inorga nic sources (acid rain), to natural (DOC) sources. Tables 4-28 and 4-29 in the 2010 re port estimated numbers and acreages of acidic lakes and sources of acidity (ac id deposition and natural sources).2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 90 

### These tables have not been included in this report because the estimates are no longer reliable and departmental sampling prioritie s have not included revisiting all of the originally sampled waters.



# S URFACE 

# W ATER 

# A MBIENT 

# T OXICS 

# (SWAT) M ONITORING 

# P ROGRAM

Contact: Barry Mower, DEP BLWQ, Division of Environ mental Assessment (DEA)

Tel: (207) 215-0291 email: Barry.F.Mower@maine.gov

Related Website: http://www.maine.gov/dep/water/monitoring/toxics/sw at/

Please refer to the website for annual reports on t his subject. Below are the executive

summaries for 2009 and 2010.

2009:

• Total PCBs in fish from Androscoggin Lake in Wayne were higher than when last

measured in 2000-2001 and exceed the Maine Center f or Disease Control and Prevention’s (MCDC) Fish Tissue Action Level. Dat a have been sent to the MCDC for further analysis.

2010:

• Fish from 45 lakes were sampled and analyzed for m ercury concentrations by a new quicker less expensive, EPA-approved method usi ng the Direct Mercury Analyzer 80 at the Sawyer Environmental Research an d Chemistry Lab at the University of Maine in Orono. The results compared favorably with those from a subset of 22 lakes analyzed by a commercial lab usi ng a more conventional

method. There was no trend for fish from 26 lakes comparing 2010 results with

those from the 1990s. The data were sent to the Ma ine Center for Disease Control and Prevention (MCDC) for use in reviewing the stat ewide Fish Consumption advisory.



# Invasive Aquatic Plants

Contact: John McPhedran, DEP BLWQ, Division of Envi ronmental Assessment (DEA)

Tel: (207) 215-9863 e-mail: John.McPhedran@maine.gov or Milfoil@maine.gov

Related Website: www.maine.gov/dep/water/invasives/index.html

The Department’s formal program to prevent spread a nd control existing infestations of invasive aquatic plants was in its ninth and tenth years of existence in 2009 and 2010, respectively.

The Lake and River Protection Sticker, the funding mechanism for the Department’s work on invasive aquatic species, was merged in 200 8 (for Maine-registered boats only) with the freshwater watercraft registration t o reduce administrative costs. The Maine watercraft registration (as of 2008) is now a two-piece sticker with one portion representing the $10 dedicated to invasive species work. Additional funding to the Department as a result of the merger increased gran ts to lake groups conducting invasive plant prevention and control projects. An y boater with an out-of-state2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 91 

### registration is still required to purchase the stan d-alone $20 Lake and River Protection sticker to affix next to their out-of-state registr ation before launching on freshwater.

As of March 2011, 33 inland bodies of water were kn own to be infested with invasive aquatic plants. Variable water milfoil ( Myriophyllum heterophyllum ), found in 27 water bodies, is the most prevalent invasive aquatic plan t. Eurasian water milfoil ( Myriophyllum spicatum ), hydrilla ( Hydrilla verticillata ), and curly-leaf pondweed ( Potamogeton crispus ) are each in two water bodies. One of the curly-l eaf pondweed waters also hosts the invasive European naiad ( Najas minor ), the only state water known to have two invasive aquatic plants.

During 2009 and 2010 the Department focused signifi cant resources on two infestations highlighted in the 2010 report, Eurasi an water milfoil in Salmon Lake (Belgrade) and hydrilla in Damariscotta Lake (Jeffe rson). Response to each infestation has included installation of plant frag ment screens to prevent further spread, frequent surveys for new plants, removal of plants by hand with divers, deployment of benthic barriers to smother plants, a nd application of systemic

herbicide.

Diver surveys of the infested area in Salmon Lake d uring 2010 (and 2011) reveal no re-emergence of Eurasian water milfoil. This is an encouraging finding, to be sure, but true eradication of the plant is still unlikely.

In Damariscotta Lake, some hydrilla still grows in the area of initial infestation found in 2009, but in 2011 a separate infestation was discov ered in a primary tributary to the lake, approximately four miles north of the initial site. The Damariscotta Lake Watershed Association (DLWA) and the Department col laborated on response to the new infestation site including plant removal and us e of benthic barriers. Management
of this infestation, like all others in the state, will require partnerships between the Department and groups such as DLWA. The initial Da mariscotta infestation was discovered by a volunteer trained through Maine Vol unteer Lake Monitoring Program’s Invasive Plant Patrol Program which is funded by re venues from the Lake and River Protection Sticker, required on all motorized water craft launched on Maine inland

water.

One piece of upbeat infestation news is the removal of one lake, 382-acre Middle Range Pond in Poland, from the list of known infest ations in Maine. The Range Pond Association (RPA) diligently surveyed for and remov ed variable milfoil plants since the plant was first found in 2001. The Department and RPA surveyed the previouslyinfested area in 2011 and found no variable milfoil , the third consecutive year in which surveys failed to detect the plant. As a result, t he Department removed Middle Range

Pond when the annual documented infestation list wa s developed in March 2012.

In 2010, volunteers and paid inspectors conducted 7 2,428 courtesy boat inspections, surpassing the previous record high of 57,552 in 20 09. Inspectors recorded at least 281 “saves” in 2010, instances where an inspector f ound and removed a confirmed invasive aquatic plant from a boat before entering or after leaving the water. Maine’s statewide Courtesy Boat Inspection Program is manag ed by Lakes Environmental Association (LEA), a regional watershed protection organization based in Bridgton, under a contract with the Department. Training of boat Inspectors is done jointly by LEA and the statewide Maine Congress of Lake Associ ations.

The Department offers annual grants to local groups coordinating boat inspection programs and removing invasive aquatic plants from lakes and ponds. The source of funding for these grants is revenue from the Lake a nd River Protection Sticker. The grant program is administered by LEA through the af orementioned contract. Cash and2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 92 

### in-kind match from local lake groups and municipali ties exceeds the amount granted by the Department.

The Department worked with the Maine Milfoil Initia tive (MMI), a project spearheaded by a consortium of lakes groups and housed at St. J oseph’s College in Standish, Maine. After significant effort on the part of the lake groups, MMI formally began in

2009 and received federal funds in 2010 to conduct research on and assist lake groups in the control of variable water milfoil.

The diatom Didymosphenia geminata (didymo) still has not been documented in Maine as of December 2012. The Department and Maine Depa rtment of Inland Fisheries and Wildlife continue to coordinate on researching the risk of spread posed by felt waders and informing anglers how to reduce the risk of spreading the invasive diatom.



# E STUARIES 

# / C OASTAL 

# W ATERS

Contact: Angela Brewer, DEP BLWQ, Division of Envir onmental Assessment (DEA)

Tel: (207) 592-2352 e-mail: Angela.D.Brewer@maine.gov

Related Website: http://www.maine.gov/dep/water/coastal/index.html



# Background

Maine has three classes for the management of estua rine and marine waters: SA, SB, and SC. Classification assignments are based on th e minimum level of quality intended for each waterbody. SA waters are outstan ding natural resources that receive minimal human impact, and are managed for t he highest water quality of the three classes. No direct discharges of pollutants, including those from finfish aquaculture, are allowed in SA waters. SB waters a re general purpose waters that are managed to attain good quality water. Well-treated discharges of pollutants with ample dilution are allowed. SC waters are managed for the lowest water quality, but

must be fishable and swimmable and maintain the str ucture and function of the biological community. Well-treated discharges of p ollutants are allowed in SC waters. Each class is managed for designated uses and each has dissolved oxygen, bacteria and aquatic life standards (see Table 4-28 below).

Table 4-28 Maine’s Estuarine and Marine Waters Clas sification Standards

Class Designated Uses Dissolved Oxygen Bacteria Aquatic Life

SA Recreation in and on the water Fishing Aquaculture (excludes finfish) Propagation and harvesting shellfish Navigation

Habitat for fish and estuarine and

marine life As naturally

occurs As naturally occurs As naturally

occurs

SB Recreation in and on the water Fishing Aquaculture Propagation and harvesting shellfish Industrial process and cooling water supply Hydroelectric power generation Not less

than 85%

of

saturation Enterococcus of human

and domestic animal origin not higher than geometric mean of

8/100ml or instantaneous

level of 54/100ml from

5/15 to 9/30 Support all indigenous

estuarine and

marine species Discharge not

to cause2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 93 Class Designated Uses Dissolved Oxygen Bacteria Aquatic Life

Navigation

Habitat for fish and estuarine and

marine life May not exceed National

Shellfish Sanitation Program criteria for shellfish harvesting closure of

shellfish beds

SC Recreation in and on the water Fishing Aquaculture Propagation and restricted shellfish harvesting Industrial process and cooling water supply Hydroelectric power generation Navigation

Habitat for fish and estuarine and

marine life Not less

than 70%

of

saturation Enterococcus of human

and domestic animal origin not higher than geometric mean of

14/100ml or

instantaneous level of

94/100ml from 5/15 to

9/30 May not exceed National

Shellfish Sanitation Program criteria for

restricted shellfish harvesting Maintain

structure and

function of the

resident biological community Support all indigenous fish species



### Maine law requires that once every three years, the Department review the classification system and related standards and mak e recommendations to the Board of Environmental Protection for any needed changes in the water quality classifications assigned to specific waterbodies. A major review o f water quality standards and classifications was completed in 2009. The Departm ent conducted statewide workshops and direct mail and telephone outreach to obtain public input and to solicit proposals for consideration to change the managemen t classification assigned to specific waterbodies. The Board held hearings that resulted in recommendations to the Maine State Legislature for the upgrade, from C lass SB to Class SA, of one marine waterbody (The Basin in Phippsburg). The current d istribution of waters assigned to three marine water quality classes is summarized in Table 4-29:

Table 4-29 Area and Percentage of Estuarine and Mar ine Waters in Each Classification

Class Square Miles Percentage

SA 218 7.66 %

SB 2,599 91.32 %

SC 29 1.02 %

Total 2,846 100.00 %



### This chapter provides an assessment of the degree t o which water quality supports the designated uses defined by the State of Maine statu tes for the protection of aquatic life. Designated uses in this chapter and in Chapt er 7 (Public Health – Related Assessments) are divided into two broad use categor ies: protection of human health and protection of aquatic life. The protection of these uses will result in the protection of other uses (e.g. navigation, industrial process and cooling supply). Applicable monitoring results and attainment assessments are s ummarized within each of these two categories in this chapter as well as in Chapte r 7.2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 94 

# Summary of Statewide Status

This Integrated Assessment report requires the assi gnment of each assessment unit, by Department Waterbody ID and/or Department of Mar ine Resources (DMR) Area, into one of five categories (see Methodology). Spe cific segments of waterbodies are determined to be impaired if they do not, or are su spected to not, attain one or more of the uses assigned by their classification based on criteria for that classification. In the next two years, the Department will engage with DMR in revising the way that marine water quality and biological data are reported, inc luding the development of assessment units (similar to what is used in the AD B for freshwaters) and digitization of units and listing segments for mapping. It is a nticipated that new assessment units will be used in the 2014 reporting cycle and will m ake assessment and reporting more

consistent and easier to track.

An overall use attainment summary for 2012 is provi ded below and in Table 4-5.

Category 1: The 2012 assessment assigns no estuarine or marine waters to Category 1 because there were no waterbody segments that wer e monitored adequately to determine that all standards were being met.

Category 2: The 2012 assessment assigns an additional 5.06 squ are miles of estuarine and marine waters to Category 2 (fully at taining*). The Category 2 listing change is due to the delisting of a segment of the Penobscot River estuary (Reeds Brook to Marsh River) from Category 3. This segmen t was delisted from a Category 5 to Category 3 in 2010 due to reasonable doubt as to the presence of harvestable lobster within the upper estuary of the Penobscot R iver. This reasonable doubt was again supported in 2012 based on personal communica tions with DMR staff indicating that habitat and water quality characteristics in t his segment are not favorable for lobster growth, and confirming that the DMR Lobster Management Zone does not extend as far upstream as the Marsh River outlet to the Penobscot River. For these two reasons, there is a low likelihood for tomalley consumption from lobster within this segment. Further updates to this section in terms of segment descriptions and sizes, DMR closure reasons, and notes will be updated for the 2014 reporting cycle once new assessment units have been assigned.

Category 3: The 2012 assessment removes 5.06 square miles of t he Penobscot River segment previously listed for lobster tomalley cons umption (see Category 2 above). Note that the 2010 report incorrectly listed this s egment as 0.4 square miles, when the segment size is now correctly calculated at 5.09 sq uare miles. The 2012 Category 3 listings are also amended based on the Category 5 l isting of the 2010 Piscataqua River estuary (Kittery, Eliot, South Berwick) segme nt 812-1.

Category 4: Category 4-A waterbody segments carried over from the 2010 report include the Piscataqua River estuary (dissolved oxy gen impairment) and all marine segments listed for fecal contamination as covered by the 2009 Statewide Bacteria TMDL. Those Category 4-A waters that were formerly listed as Category 5-B-2 for bacteria due to Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs) are listed separately. Eliminated from this CSO-affected list is the Rockland segment with Waterbody ID 722-40 based on the removal of a municipal discharge point at th e Town Landing in the Fall of 2010. Due to this modification by the Wastewater Treatmen t Facility, Rockland is no longer considered a CSO community. Note that Enforcement Control dates and causes have been updated for all wastewater treatment facility’ s listings.2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 95 

### Categories 4-B-1 and 4-C remain unchanged for estua rine and marine waters. Further updates to this section in terms of segment descrip tions and sizes will be updated for the 2014 reporting cycle once new assessment units have been assigned.

Category 5: The 2012 assessment assigns an additional 4.07 squ are miles to the Category 5-A listings based on Marine Life Use Supp ort impairments within the Piscataqua River estuary (Eliot, Kittery) (1.91 squ are miles) and Portsmouth Harbor (south and west of Gerrish Island) (2.16 square mil es). Both segments were listed in Category 3 in 2010 as part of one larger segment (W aterbody ID 812-1: Piscataqua R. Estuary, Kittery, Eliot, So. Berwick). The Piscata qua River Estuary and Portsmouth Harbor areas were moved to Category 5 for this repo rting cycle as a result of

additional available data and observations that ind icate impairment based on a greater than 20% areal cover loss of eelgrass from 1996 to 2010, as documented by New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services aeri al photography and groundtruthing surveys. Sufficient evidence exists for the Piscataqua River Estuary segment to attribute an impairment cause of nutrien t/eutrophication biological indicators; however, the ‘cause unknown’ designatio n for the Portsmouth Harbor segment acknowledges that insufficient data exist t o determine whether or not the marine life use is impaired due to pollutants.

No waterbody segments are listed in Category 5-B fo r bacteria impairment since the approval of the 2009 Statewide Bacteria TMDL. For Category 5-D, this report does not list specific waterbody segments covered by the sta tewide lobster tomalley consumption advisory that is in place for all Maine estuarine and marine waters capable of supporting lobster due to presence of PC Bs and dioxins. Category 5-D remains unchanged at 2,846 square miles for the 201 2 report. The advisory is based on probability data that shellfish (lobster tomalle y) inhabiting estuarine or marine waters may exceed the advisory action level for the se substances.

As with any assessment of this kind, the identifica tion of impaired waters cannot be considered complete but rather is a reflection of t he findings (to date) relative to the level of effort expended by the agency and other co operating contributors.



# Causes and Sources of Impairment in Categories 4 an d 5

Cause and stress type information is provided in Ta ble 4-14, while information on sources of impairment is provided in Table 4-19. C auses include impairments due to elevated bacterial counts (fecal contamination with Enterococcus as the indicator organism), low dissolved oxygen, elevated nutrients and/or biological indicators of eutrophication, or elevated toxics concentrations. These causes are presented below in greater detail.



# B ACTERIA

The intent of the Maine Statewide Bacteria Total Ma ximum Daily Load (TMDL) was to “support action to reduce public health risk from w aterborne disease-causing organisms.” Non-pathogenic bacteria, including Ent erococci in the marine environment, are used as indicator organisms for fe cal pathogens in water. Waterborne pathogens (bacteria, viruses, etc.) ente r surface waters from a variety of sources, including human sewage and the feces of wa rm-blooded wildlife. These pathogens can pose a risk to human health due to ga strointestinal illness through2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 96 

### different exposure routes, including contact with a nd ingestion of recreational waters, ingestion of drinking water, and consumption of fil ter-feeding shellfish (clams, mussels, etc.). Additionally, the TMDL was intended to iden tify waterbody segments that were not meeting attainment of the designated uses of sw imming and shellfishing based on associated water quality criteria.

Improved management of bacterial sources of impairm ent that cause shellfish closures will result from implementation of the approved 200 9 Statewide Bacteria TMDL. For the 2012 reporting cycle, bacterial contamination w as the listed cause of impairment for approximately 159 square miles of estuarine wat ers (excluding those listed based on Combined Sewer Overflows (CSOs). Bacterial cont amination is currently monitored by the Department in selected urban strea ms, the Maine Healthy Beaches program on swimming beaches and occasionally in tid al waters influencing bacterial loads to recreational areas, and the Department of Marine Resources (DMR) to determine appropriate shellfish harvest closures (s ee also Chapter 7). All monitoring programs as well aid in the identification of fecal contamination from point and nonpoint sources as possible through local knowledge, Department permits, and applied techniques such as Microbial Source Tracking.



# D ISSOLVED 

# O XYGEN

Eight waterbody segments are listed as impaired (si x in Categories 4-A, 4-B-1 and 4- C, and two in Category 5-A) due to lack of attainme nt of state dissolved oxygen

standards. The reasons for non-attainment are vari ed and include loadings from point and non-point sources in waterbody segments with in sufficient flow, factors such as benthic respiration (sediment oxygen demand), and r estriction of water circulation caused by man-made structures.

• The estuarine portion of the lower Salmon Falls/up per Piscataqua River has a completed TMDL; however, implementation in ME and N H is incomplete. The NH Department of Environmental Services continues to m onitor a station within the tidal portion of the Salmon Falls, and has high res olution sonde data that indicate dissolved oxygen values consistently below ME state criteria (<85% saturation) from mid-July through mid-October 2009 and mid-July through mid-September 2010. Note that some portion of the July through S eptember 2010 data is not reliable given either a probe failure or suspect va lues.

• The estuarine portions of the Ogunquit River, Goos efare Brook, Medomak River and St. George River are not known to have been mon itored for dissolved oxygen since the 2010 reporting cycle, so no additional in formation on attainment is available since relocation of municipal point sourc es.

• The upper New Meadows estuary and “Lake” do not me et dissolved oxygen standards due to the partial impoundment from the O ld Route 1 (Bath Rd./State Rd.) causeway at the Brunswick-West Bath town line, and further restriction of flow from the causeway formed by the current Route 1. A modeling study (2007) and feasibility study (2006) have been conducted to bet ter understand tidal restriction causes, determine solutions, and predict potential recovery, including dissolved oxygen impacts, with renewed tidal flow. There are currently no known plans to restore tidal flow upstream of the Old Route 1 caus eway.

• The draft Royal River Waste Load Allocation Study recommended delisting the estuary for dissolved oxygen due to potential natur al causes. The estuary will remain in Category 5 due to uncertainty of the low dissolved oxygen cause(s).2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 97 

### • The draft Mousam River Waste Load Allocation Study indicated that the majority of oxygen loss is due to benthic respiration and circu lation factors and that the Kennebunk treatment facility has only a very margin al effect. Suggested upgrades to the facility including biological treatment impr ovements have been completed

and minimum summer DO limits for effluent have been established. However, no further data collection within the receiving water has occurred since the upgrades.

Generally, data from various studies and volunteer monitoring programs show dissolved oxygen levels along the coast to be adequ ate to protect marine life. As presented in the Casco Bay Estuary Partnership’s 20 10 State of the Bay report, the Friends of Casco Bay have determined that approxima tely 90% of all dissolved oxygen data from Casco Bay (7,600+ measurements from 1993- 2008) indicate values above 7.2 mg/L, with periodically lower values generally located in warmer estuarine waters such as Portland Harbor, Maquoit Bay, and the Royal , New Meadows, and

Harraseeket Rivers. While some estuaries have diss olved oxygen levels that do not meet their classification criteria, the Department has concluded that some of these instances are a result of natural processes, such a s in Harpswell Sound in the vicinity of the long-term water quality buoy owned by Bowdoi n College and operated by the University of Maine.



# N UTRIENTS 

# /E UTROPHICATION 

# B IOLOGICAL 

# I NDICATORS

In Maine between Kittery and Bar Harbor there is no w evidence of nutrient enrichment. From Bar Harbor to Eastport, the principal source o f nitrogen is from the Gulf of Maine, while the more developed areas of the Maine coastli ne along Penobscot Bay, Casco Bay and the southern bays through Kittery exhibit n itrogen predominantly from
freshwater inflows, wastewater, and stormwater runo ff, although groundwater nitrogen inputs may be more substantial in coastal areas wit h sandy soils. While nitrogen is consistently conveyed through water, atmospheric de position can also provide a dominant nitrogen source in more rural areas of Mai ne.

Typical biological indicators of nutrient enrichmen t in Maine’s marine waters include phytoplankton, macroalgae and eelgrass. While spri ng, summer and fall blooms of non-toxic phytoplankton (diatom and dinoflagellates ) have been shown to coincide with water column nutrients, a 2010 report prepared for the Casco Bay Estuary Partnership
concluded that based on 2006-2008 data, bloom inten sity of the toxic red tide organism, Alexandrium fundyense , in Casco Bay did not correlate with anthropogenic

, land-derived nutrient loading. Anthropogenic nitro gen has been shown to fuel growth of nuisance macroalgae, especially of the genus Ulva (formerly Enteromorpha ). Proliferation of opportunistic macroalgae generally occurs when favorable temperature, irradiance and nutrient availability c oincide. While nuisance macroalgal growth often occurs on protected shorelines with sh allow slopes such as mudflats, excessive growth can also be observed along more ex posed shorelines. Opportunistic macroalgal growth is a natural occurrence, although widespread blooms covering

intertidal and shallow subtidal shorelines can smot her organisms living in the sediment and result in production of toxic concentrations of hydrogen sulfide by bacteria. The DEP and Friends of Casco Bay are currently assessin g the reliability of nuisance macroalgal blooms as indicators of nutrient polluti on in Maine’s estuaries.

The success of eelgrass populations is strongly inf luenced by light availability, which can be limited by the presence of epiphytic cover o r when water column turbidity increases as a result of suspended organic material that feeds on excess nutrients.2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 98 

### The State of New Hampshire had listed the Piscataqu a River Estuary (Lower Piscataqua River, NH Assessment Units NHEST60003100 1-02-01 and NHEST600031001-02-02) on its 2010 303(d) list for A quatic Life impairment due to >20% loss of eelgrass. Since DEP’s 2010 Category 3 listing of the estuarine portion of the Piscataqua River and Portsmouth Harbor, the DEP has more completely assessed available eelgrass areal coverage and density data from the NH Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) and completed field surveys to observe and groundtruth eelgrass distribution and perceived imp acts on the Maine portion of the lower Piscataqua River and Portsmouth Harbor. Base d on these assessments, the DEP has divided the Piscataqua River and Portsmouth Harbor into two assessment units (Waterbody IDs 812-2 and 812-3) bounded on th e west by the state line. The

assessment unit division was determined as a result of relative influences of the River and Gulf of Maine waters, land use and shoreline de velopment, and exposure to point and non-point source discharges. For the 2012 repo rting cycle, the DEP determined

that:

• Eelgrass within the Piscataqua River segment has d eclined from 299.1 acres to 6.8 acres (98% loss) from 1996 to 2010, and that suffic ient data exist to assign a Category 5 listing for Marine Life Use Support impa irment with cause of nutrient/eutrophication biological indicators.

• The Portsmouth Harbor segment west of Gerrish Isla nd has also demonstrated considerable eelgrass loss, with a 49% decrease in acreage from 1996 to 2010 and a 62% decrease during the same time period when adjusted for decline in both areal coverage and plant density. While the DEP ac knowledges the loss of eelgrass within this area and therefore the Categor y 5 listing, a ‘cause unknown’ designation has been assigned until further data co llection (planned for summer 2014) and analyses can be completed to investigate potential reasons for population decline.

Future evaluations of nutrient data and impacts wil l be facilitated by development of state nitrogen criteria for Maine’s marine waters a nd more specifically for the Piscataqua River and Portsmouth Harbor, NHDES draft nitrogen criteria, and nutrient load reductions from licensed dischargers and non-p oint source contributors.



# T OXICS

The general category of toxics is by far the most w idespread cause of impairment in marine waters in the State. The toxics subcategori es of Polychlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) and dioxins impaired all 2,846 square miles of marine waters that were

assessed in 2012 due to the statewide lobster tomal ley consumption advisory. Industrial point sources have historically been the largest contributing source category

for dioxin. Some industrial loads that are treated through municipal point sources are additional sources although pretreatment is require d in most cases. These industrial sources account for most of the shellfish (lobster tomalley) consumption listed waters where dioxins remain the primary contaminant. Due to changes in bleaching at the state’s bleached kraft pulp and paper mills, as of 2005 the mills were found to be no longer discharging measurable amounts of dioxin. A s a result, concentrations in fish are declining, although elevated levels remain in f ish in some estuarine portions of rivers due to historical discharges.2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 99 

### The removal of combined sewer overflows over the pa st several years has improved environmental quality in some of Maine’s harbors. However, many locations, for example Kittery, Portland, Boothbay Harbor, Rocklan d and Searsport, still have toxic pollution problems from past activities. These act ivities include papermaking, shipbuilding, energy production (e.g., gasworks), t anning, and metal working. Toxics derived from these industries include dioxin, pesti cides such as DDT, metals, and

PCBs. Landfills were also often located on the coa st (e.g., Eastern Promenade in Portland) and continue to be sources of toxic pollu tants. More recent elevations in toxic pollution, especially from Polycyclic Aromati c Hydrocarbons (PAHs) and metals (e.g., lead, copper, zinc), are related to increase s in urban development and boat related activities. Direct untreated discharges th rough combined sewer overflows still deliver toxic pollutants and bacteria to Maine’s co astal waters during and after storms. Some toxic pollutants (e.g., PAHs, mercury) are dep osited from the air.



# Surface Water Ambient Toxics (SWAT) Monitoring Prog ram

Contact: Barry Mower, DEP BLWQ, Division of Environ mental Assessment (DEA)

Tel: (207) 215-0291 email: Barry.F.Mower@maine.gov

Related Website: http://www.maine.gov/dep/water/monitoring/toxics/sw at/index.htm

Please refer to the website for annual reports on t his subject.

Maine’s Surface Water Ambient Toxics (SWAT) monitor ing program was established in 1993 (38 MRSA §420-B) to determine the nature, s cope and severity of toxic

contamination in the surface waters and fisheries o f the State. The authorizing statute states that the program: 1) must comprehensively mo nitor the lakes, rivers and

streams and marine and estuarine waters of the Stat e on an ongoing basis, 2) must incorporate testing for suspected toxic contaminati on in biological tissue and sediment, 3) may include testing of the water column, 4) must include biomonitoring and the monitoring of the health of individual organisms th at may serve as indicators of toxic contamination, and 5) must collect data sufficient to support assessment of the risks to human and ecological health posed by the direct and indirect discharge of toxic contaminants. The marine portion of the SWAT progr am has utilized blue mussel, softshell clam, and American lobster tissue as indi cators of toxic contamination likely to affect human and ecological health.

In 2009, blue mussel tissue from 16 sites along the Maine coast was analyzed for contaminants including metals, mercury, PAHs, PCBs, and pesticides. Lead in mussel tissue exceeded National Status and Trends (NS&T) M usselwatch 85th percentile concentrations at five sites and mercury at 12 site s. PAHs exceeded national 85th percentile concentrations at two sites. One additi onal site in the Sheepscot River showed elevated concentrations of PAHs when alkylat ed PAHs were included in the analysis. PCB concentrations at two of eight sites exceeded the Gulf of Maine 85th percentile concentration, though no sites exceeded the national 85 th 

### percentile concentration. Organochlorinated pesticide concent rations in mussel tissue were generally low at Maine sites compared to national d ata. New sampling for organophosphate, triazine, pyrethroid, and organoni trogen pesticides revealed very low concentrations in mussels (non-detects) at all stations sampled.2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 100 

### In 2010, blue mussel tissue from three and softshel l clam tissue from one coastal Maine sites were analyzed for contaminants includin g metals, mercury, PAHs, PCBs, and organochlorinated pesticides. Additionally, Am erican lobster hepatopancreas and muscle tissues from 19 sites were analyzed for PAHs , coplanar PCBs, and dioxins and

furans. Lead in mussel tissue exceeded the nationa l 85 th 

### percentile concentration at two sites, both of which as well as clam tissue fro m one site exceeded the Maine Center for Disease Control’s (MCDC) fish tissue act ion level (FTAL) for lead in finfish. Mercury in mussel tissue exceeded the national 85th percentile concentration at all

three sites. PAHs in mussel and clam tissues did n ot exceed the national 85th percentile and were not considered to be elevated. PCB concentrations in mussel tissue at one site exceeded the MCDC cancer FTAL, w hile clam tissue PCBs were below the MCDC cancer FTAL. Organochlorinated pest icide concentrations in mussel and clam tissue were low at Maine sites compared to national data, and pesticide levels were safely below MCDC FTAL values. Dioxin, furan, and coplanar PCB concentrations remain very high in lobster hepatopa ncreas (also known as tomalley), indicating the need to continue the MCDC advisory a gainst consumption of lobster hepatopancreas. Concentrations of these contaminant s in lobster muscle tissue remain very low in comparison to tomalley and to th e MCDC FTAL, indicating lobster

meat is still safe to eat.



# Gulfwatch Contaminants Monitoring Program

Contact: Jim Stahlnecker, DEP BLWQ, Division of Env ironmental Assessment

Tel: (207) 215-6954 email: James.Stahlnecker@maine.gov

Related Website: http://www.gulfofmaine.org/gulfwatch/

In addition to the Surface Water Ambient Toxics (SW AT) program, the DEP participates in the Gulfwatch Contaminants Monitori ng Program, a part of the Gulf of

Maine Council on the Marine Environment. In additi on to the Maine coastline, monitoring occurs across Massachusetts, New Hampshi re, New Brunswick and Nova Scotia, and utilizes the blue mussel, Mytilus edulis , as an indicator for habitat exposure to contaminants. Mussel tissue samples are analyze d for heavy metals, mercury, polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), polychlori nated biphenyl (PCBs) congeners, and organochlorinated pesticides. Contaminant accu mulation in mussel tissue represents the biologically available proportion th at is not always apparent from

measurement of contaminants in other environmental matrices such as water, sediment, and suspended particles. Gulfwatch has s ampled over 50 sites across the Gulf of Maine since 1991, including 13 regularly sa mpled sites on the Maine coast. Annual reporting includes analysis of spatial and t emporal trends and identifies potential outliers in order to provide investigator s and other interested persons with contemporary information concerning water quality i n the Gulf of Maine, as reflected by uptake into resident shellfish.

In 2009, blue mussel tissue was sampled from eight sites along the coast of Maine, and revealed mean or composite values in excess of the National Status and Trends (NS&T) Musselwatch 85 th 

### percentile concentrations for lead (3 sites) and m ercury (5 sites). No PAH, PCB or pesticide concentrations fr om any Maine site were higher than

the NS&T 85 th 

### percentile, although the second and third highest values for total PAHs

in the Gulf of Maine were from the Portland Harbor and Boothbay Harbor sites, and were determined to be primarily of pyrogenic origin . The third highest total PCB value

from the Gulf of Maine was from Portland Harbor. T he full data report can be viewed2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 101 

### at http://www.gulfofmaine.org/gulfwatch/data/files.php . A data report from 2010 samples collected from six sites along the Maine co ast is not yet available.



# BioDiversity Research Institute

Contact: Wing Goodale, BioDiversity Research Instit ute, Deputy Director

Tel: (207) 839-7600 email: wing_goodale@briloon.org

Related Website: http://www.briloon.org/

In 2009, the BioDiversity Research Institute expand ed upon the 2007 and 2008 broadbased contaminant study on Maine birds funded in pa rt by the Department’s SWAT program, by measuring both historical and emerging chemicals. Out of the 23 species studied in the first two years, osprey ( Pandion haliaetus ) foraging in Casco Bay were selected for additional study in 2009 because they act as bioindicators of the marine habitat. The compounds analyzed in ten eggs collec ted in Casco Bay in 2009 and 7 eggs collected in 2007 were mercury (results pendin g), polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), polybrominated diphenyl ethers (PBDEs), per fluorinated compounds (PFCs), organochlorine pesticides (OCs), decabromodiphenyl ether (Deca-BDE) and perfluorooctane sulfonate (PFOS). Preliminary find ings are:

• PCBs, PBDEs, PFCs, and OCs were detected in all sa mples.

• Deca-BDE was found in ten out of 12 eggs in Casco Bay, indicating that deca is bioaccumulating in wildlife.

• PFOS level on Flag Island had the highest level de tected in Maine wildlife - 75% of the eggs had PFOS levels above effects thresholds e stablished for chickens.

• Levels of PBDEs and PFCs tended to be higher in Ca sco Bay than mid-coast

Maine.

• The osprey samples did not show a specific spatial pattern, suggesting that within the marine ecosystem, contaminant levels may be dic tated by point sources, watershed characteristics, and/or food web dynamics

.

• Like the 2007 and 2008 results, PCB, PBDE, PFC, an d OC levels are positively correlated, indicating that birds with high levels of one compound tend to have higher levels of the others. PBDEs and PCBs have on e of the strongest relationships.

The full report can be obtained at: http://www.briloon.org/contaminants/

.



# Ocean acidification

Ocean acidification (OA) is a topic of mounting con cern worldwide as a consequence of rising atmospheric CO 2 

### . For the 2008 and 2010 Integrated Report and agai n for this 2012 report, the Center for Biological Diversity (C BD, San Francisco, CA) has requested that coastal states list their coastal wa ters as threatened or impaired, in Category 5, due to information that has been gather ed indicating marine ecosystems may already be experiencing declines in ocean pH. As one of the conditions of a settlement agreement with the CBD, the USEPA issued a memorandum on November 15, 2010, describing how states can move forward, w here OA information exists, to address OA during the 2012 listing cycle using the current 303(d) Integrated Reporting
framework. At the same time, this memorandum ackno wledged that in the case of OA, information is largely absent or limited at this po int in time to support the listing of2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 102 

### waters for OA in many states. The following EPA we bpage includes a copy of the signed memorandum, “Integrated Reporting and Listin g Decisions Related to Ocean

Acidification”: http://water.epa.gov/lawsregs/lawsguidance/cwa/tmdl /oa_memo_nov201

0.cfm

. The Maine Department of Environmental Protection (D EP) acknowledges that OA and its effects on pH and marine life have been documen ted in other areas of the world’s estuarine and coastal waters and may be of concern in Maine’s marine waters. While the DEP has not established a monitoring program sp ecifically targeted at identifying OA and its effects on water quality criteria and de signated uses, the DEP has been

and continues to be in contact with environmental o rganizations and universities whose researchers are conducting focused studies on pH and effects on shellfisheries within Maine jurisdictional waters.

Maine’s DEP reviewed the articles submitted by CBD and determined that none of them provided sufficient information demonstrating that Maine’s marine waters are failing to attain (or will not be in attainment by the next listing cycle) Maine’s water quality standards, including those for protection o f pH, marine life use, and antidegradation. Waters are listed in Category 5 a s threatened when there is an expectation that impairment of a designated use is anticipated in the next listing cycle. Maine marine waters are not expected to show impair ment of water quality criteria (pH) or relevant designated uses (marine life use s upport) in that timeframe. Nevertheless, Maine agrees that OA may be a signifi cant concern in the future.

Water quality and designated uses

Pursuant to the General Provisions of the Maine Rev ised Statutes (38 MRSA §464), the Department may not issue a water discharge lice nse if “Discharge of pollutants to any water of the State that violates sections 465, 465-A and 465-B, except as provided in section 451;...causes the "pH" of estuarine and ma rine waters to fall outside of the 7.0 to 8.5 range”. The DEP regularly monitors mari ne waters for multiple water quality parameters, including pH, in the vicinity of permit ted discharges based on established DEP priorities for assessing receiving waterbodies for attainment of water quality criteria. The monitoring conducted by the DEP is m ost often intended to characterize ambient conditions. Monitoring efforts conducted t o date by the DEP do not indicate failure to attain pH criteria in marine waters beca use data values fall within the allowable pH range.

The CBD 2011 letter also indicates that Maine must list marine waters as threatened and impaired based on aquatic life threats and impa irments caused by OA. The referenced designated use of aquatic life can be ad dressed by the Maine Revised

Statute that states that classified marine waters “ ...must be of such quality that they are suitable for the designated uses of recreation in and on the water, fishing, aquaculture, propagation and harvesting of shellfis h, industrial process and cooling water supply, hydroelectric power generation, navig ation and as habitat for fish and

other estuarine and marine life. The habitat must be characterized as unimpaired.” (38 MRSA §465-B).

Impacts of OA on marine life and habitat would be m ost likely manifested by acidic
sediments and bottom waters, and reduced success of shellfish recruitment and shell formation. As the regulatory agency of commerciall y-harvested species, shellfish and relevant habitat are mostly monitored by the Maine Department of Marine Resources2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 103 

### (DMR), but also by municipal shellfish wardens and as part of pilot and laboratory studies being coordinated by the Casco Bay Estuary Partnership and St. Joseph’s College, respectively. No supporting data were sub mitted to the DEP as part of the 303(d) assessment process, and therefore, were not readily available for preparation of the 303(d) list. Further, studies referenced in the CBD letter generally pertain to 1) trends in global carbon emissions, 2) oceanic im pacts (pH, carbonate chemistry, calcification in pelagic organisms) of elevated atm ospheric CO 2 

### , or 3) lowered pH, salinity and temperature interactions and extrapola ted impacts on shellfish of varying species and life stages. None of these references directly relate to the condition of Maine’s waters due to the global location, spatial scale of comparison and/or the applicability of laboratory experimental results. As such, no demonstrated impairments to pH, marine life or habitat have been documented based on the contents of the CBD letter to support a threatened or impaired listing.

More specifically, the CBD letter states that coast al estuaries and temperate nearshore ecosystems are especially susceptible to changes in pH, and that calcifying organisms in particular are already threatened in Maine’s coa stal waters by OA. Casco Bay was identified by the CBD as being especially vulnerabl e to OA. Of all articles submitted by the CBD, Waldbusser et al. (2010) was flagged as ha ving potential information
relevant to Maine’s marine waters; however, it was determined that the article’s contents were insufficient to make a listing determ ination (see “State Assessment” below).

Summary of Waldbusser et al. (2010):

Waldbusser et al. (2010) assessed linear regression s of Chesapeake Bay water temperature, salinity, and pH data, grouped into me sohaline and polyhaline sites, from April-September of 1985-2008. Shell calcification rates were then measured on cultured eastern oysters in a factorial experiment with differing temperature, salinity and pH treatments to determine Total Alkalinity (TA ) change over time as a measure of calcification rate. From historical data analyses, the authors observed a significant seasonal decline in average daytime pH within polyh aline (>18 ppt) surface waters, but not in mesohaline (5-18 ppt) surface waters. From the laboratory experiment, significant interactions of pH with salinity or tem perature were determined, and calcification rates decreased steadily with decreas ing pH under the lower salinity (16 ppt) and lower temperature (20°C) treatments (Waldb usser et al. 2010). Waldbusser et al. (2010) state that “the importance of pH vers us saturation state versus pCO 2 

### on calcification will likely vary with species, life s tage, mode of calcification, and the degree of departure from what are currently poorly quantified thresholds to changes in

carbonate variables.”

State Assessment:

Physical conditions in the Chesapeake Bay differ fr om those in Maine marine waters.

In the Maine intertidal and shallow subtidal enviro nment, shellfish are subject to wider swings in temperature and salinity based on exposur e to solar radiation and the relative influences of freshwater inputs from river s and streams, surface conveyance and groundwater flow, and more saline water from fl ood tides and eddies from offshore

currents. The lowered calcification rates of easte rn oyster shells measured in the laboratory by Waldbusser et al. (2010) as a result of lower pH, polyhaline and higher2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 104 

### water temperature conditions, do not provide suffic ient cause and effect for shellfish impacts of OA in Maine’s marine waters.

Antidegradation Maine’s antidegradation policy states that “Existin g in-stream water uses and the level of water quality necessary to protect those existin g uses must be maintained and protected.” (38 MRSA §464). Based on CBD’s letter, it is not clear which waters are the focus of the antidegradation concerns and there fore existing uses and necessary water quality cannot be appropriately assessed. Fu rther, the CBD letter does not indicate which components of the antidegradation po licy are not in compliance with Maine’s water quality standards. Nevertheless, the water quality data the DEP has in its possession do not suggest that existing uses in Maine’s marine waters are not being met.2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 105 

# C HAPTER 

# 5 W ETLANDS

Contact: Jeanne DiFranco, DEP BLWQ, Division of Env ironmental Assessment (DEA)

Tel: (207) 699-8345 email: Jeanne.L.DiFranco@maine.gov

Related Websites: www.maine.gov/dep/water/wetlands/ and http://www.maine.gov/dep/water/monitoring/biomonito ring/index.html



# B ACKGROUND



# Federal Regulation

EPA Contact: Beth Alafat, EPA Region I, Office of E cosystem Protection

Tel: (617) email: alafat.beth@epa.gov

Related Website: (EPA) http://water.epa.gov/type/wetlands/

ACE Contact: Ruth Ladd, ACE New England Region, Reg ulatory Division

Tel: (978) 318-8818 email: ruth.m.ladd@usace.army.mil

Related Website: (ACE) http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/wetlands/ and

http://www.usace.army.mil/Missions/CivilWorks/Regul atoryProgramandPermits.aspx

Lead Agencies: EPA Region I and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (ACE) – Maine Project Office

The Clean Water Act provides for wetland protection and regulation through a number of federal programs, most of which are administered by EPA. The Section 404 regulatory program is jointly administered by EPA a nd the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Key elements of the federal wetland prot ection framework are described in more detail in the Chapter 5 of Maine’s 2006 Water Quality Assessment.



# Wetlands Regulatory Program in Maine’s Organized To wns

Contact: Mark Bergeron, DEP BLWQ, Division of Land Resource Regulation (DLRR)

Tel: (207) 215-4397 email: Mark.Bergeron@maine.gov

Related Website: (NRPA) http://www.maine.gov/dep/land/nrpa/

Maine DEP regulates wetland alterations in the orga nized townships under the Natural Resources Protection Act 38 M.R.S.A., Section 480-A et seq. (NRPA) and Chapter

310 Wetlands and Waterbodies Protection Rules. Add itional information on the DEP wetlands regulatory program is available at the abo ve web site.

Natural Resources Regulatory Update

A number of changes were made to the Natural Resou rces Protection Act (NRPA) that may affect how wetlands are regulated. Under maintenance dredging, an applicant may submit with his or her application an update of an earlier analysis of alternatives if it was completed within the last 10 years, and a permit for maintenance dredging may be renewed with a permit by rule if th e proposed area was dredged within the last 10 years and the amount of material dredged does not exceed the amount in the individual permit. The existing main tenance and repair of structures exemption in NRPA was separated in a new section on the maintenance, repair and replacement of a stream crossing. A permit is not required for the repair, maintenance2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 106 

### or replacement of an existing crossing and related construction activities provided certain conditions are met, including using open-bo ttom culvert or embedding closed culverts into the stream substrate, adding riprap o n side slopes or culvert ends, and removing debris and blockages within the crossing s tructure and at its inlet and outlet. The storage of lobster traps and related fishing eq uipment on a pier was added as an exemption in NRPA.

For vernal pools, a landowner will not be subject t o regulation if the vernal pool is not on the property or under the control of the landown er. If only a portion of the vernal pool is on the property of the landowner and a land owner does not have permission to access the abutting property, only that portion of the vernal pool that is on the landowner’s property may be counted for purposes of determining significance. A Department determination that a vernal pool is not significant remains valid regardless of timeframe. Additionally, an artificial vernal p ool created in connection with a compensation project is exempt.

The Maine Legislature directed the Department to in clude provisions for activities within high or moderate value Inland Wading Bird an d Waterfowl habitat to be eligible for Permit by Rule. These changes were enacted in 2012.



# Wetlands Regulatory Program in Unorganized Territor ies

Contact: Marcia Spencer-Famous, Senior Planner, DAF C, Land Use Planning

Commission

Tel: (207) 287-4933 email: Marcia.Spencer-Famous@maine.gov

The Maine Land Use Planning Commission (LUPC) uses a land use planning approach to regulate wetlands in unorganized portio ns of the State, in accordance with the provisions of Title 12, Sections 681-689 (Use R egulation) and Chapter 10 of LURC rules (Land Use Districts and Standards). Details about LUPC’s wetlands regulatory program may be found in Chapter 5 of Maine’s 2006 W ater Quality Assessment, or by contacting Marcia Spencer-Famous.



# D EVELOPMENT OF 

# W ETLAND 

# W ATER 

# Q UALITY 

# S TANDARDS

Contact: Jeanne DiFranco, DEP BLWQ, Division of Env ironmental Assessment (DEA)

Tel: (207) 699-8345 email: Jeanne.L.DiFranco@maine.gov

Related Websites: (EPA)

(Wetland Water Quality) www.epa.gov/owow/wetlands/regs/quality.html

(General Water Quality Standards) www.epa.gov/ost/standards/

Maine’s Water Classification Program:

In Maine, wetlands are included in the definition o f “Waters of the State” contained in the Protection and Improvement of Waters Act, 38 M. R.S.A. Section 361-A, and are

further defined as either “fresh surface waters” or “estuarine and marine waters”. As waters of the State, wetlands are subject to all pe rtinent provisions of the Maine Water Classification Program statute (38 M.R.S.A. Section 464 et al.) including designated uses, narrative biological criteria and the State’s anti-degradation policy. Wetlands that are part of great ponds or natural lakes and p onds less than 10 acres in size are

considered GPA waters. All freshwater wetlands not classified as GPA waters are classified under Sections 467 and 468 (Classificati on of Major River Basins and2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 107 

### Classification of Minor Drainages) according to the drainage basin in which they occur

and the classification of associated water bodies. Where not otherwise specified,

wetlands assume the default classifications listed for tributaries, since virtually all

wetlands in the State drain to other water bodies v ia surface and/or ground water. Coastal wetlands are classified according to the pr ovisions of 38 M.R.S.A. Section 469 (Classification of Estuarine and Marine Waters).

Narrative Aquatic Life Use Criteria:

The following is a summary of pertinent narrative a quatic life criteria:

Class GPA waters, including wetlands associated wit h great ponds and natural ponds

and lakes less than 10 acres in size:

Habitat for fish and aquatic life must be character ized as natural. Must have stable or decreasing trophic state, subject to natural flu ctuations, and be free of culturally induced algal blooms which impair use and enjoyment

.

Fresh surface waters not classified GPA, including wetlands associated with rivers and

streams:

Class AA: Habitat for fish and aquatic life must b e characterized as free-flowing and natural. Aquatic life shall be as naturally oc curs.

Class A: Habitat for fish and aquatic life must be characterized as natural. Aquatic life shall be as naturally occurs.

Class B: Habitat for fish and aquatic life must be characterized as unimpaired. Must support all indigenous aquatic species without detrimental changes in the resident biological community.

Class C: Some changes to aquatic life allowed. Mu st support all indigenous fish species. Structure and function of the resident bi ological community must be

maintained.

Wetland Numeric Biocriteria Development

The DEP Biological Monitoring Program assesses the condition of rivers, streams and freshwater wetlands by evaluating resident aquatic macroinvertebrate and algal communities. River and stream biomonitoring data h ave been used for many years to inform a variety of resource management activities and regulatory programs, supported by the development of numeric biological criteria based on sound statistical modeling. In recent years, requests to the Biomoni toring Program for assessments of wetland water quality and ecological condition have significantly increased. In response, DEP biologists have developed a draft lin ear discriminant model (LDM) to

assess freshwater wetland macroinvertebrate communi ties by predicting attainment of tiered aquatic life use criteria described in Maine ’s water quality standards. Sites included in the LDM are typically lacustrine and ri verine fringe wetlands having2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 108 

### emergent and/or aquatic bed vegetation. DEP also d eveloped macroinvertebrate

inference models for selected environmental stresso rs, individual taxa tolerance values, and a community level invertebrate toleranc e index.

Although Maine has narrative biological criteria fo r all surface waters including wetlands, DEP biologists rely on expert judgment to interpret the criteria for wetlands. When implemented, the LDM will serve as the basis f or wetland-specific numeric criteria, and will greatly enhance the ability of t he Biomonitoring Program to provide
data users with consistent, standardized assessment s of wetland condition and impacts from human activities. Numeric biological criteria will help DEP to fully integrate wetlands into its water quality monitorin g and assessment program and fulfill federal requirements for wetland monitoring, assess ment and water quality standards

under the Clean Water Act.

To date, DEP has focused on biocriteria development for wetland macroinvertebrates, and needs to build assessment capability for additi onal biological assemblages. The use of multiple biological indicators including mac roinvertebrates, algae and plant communities will provide important tools to supplem ent current assessment methods.

These additional tools will enable DEP to evaluate impacts from a wider array of
environmental stressors, and will allow the Biomoni toring Program to conduct monitoring and assessment on more types of wetlands . The Biomonitoring program has a substantial amount of existing wetland algae data which will be analyzed over the next two years to develop biological metrics so these data may be used to assess wetland condition. DEP also plans to explore optio ns to incorporate vegetative indicators into its wetland monitoring and assessme nt program. This may include application of the Floristic Quality Assessment Ind ex developed through the New England Biological Assessment of Wetlands Workgroup (NEBAWWG).



# I NTEGRITY OF 

# W ETLAND 

# R ESOURCES

Contact: Jeanne DiFranco, DEP BLWQ, Division of Env ironmental Assessment (DEA)

Tel: (207) 699-8345 email: Jeanne.L.DiFranco@maine.gov

Related Website: http://www.maine.gov/dep/water/monitoring/biomonito ring/index.html



# Wetland Biological Monitoring and Assessment

Wetland biological monitoring and assessment are pe rformed by DEP’s Biological Monitoring Program in the Division of Environmental Assessment. Wetland biomonitoring is coordinated with the State’s river and stream biomonitoring program using a 5-year rotating basin schedule. DEP conduc ts sampling for aquatic macroinvertebrates, epiphytic algae and phytoplankt on. Associated physical and chemical data are obtained through field measuremen ts and analysis of water samples. Habitat descriptions, Cowardin classifica tion, hydrogeomorphic setting, substrate, and dominant plant species/community typ e are also documented. In addition, the DEP Biomonitoring Program uses a Huma n Disturbance Score as part of a rapid assessment of environmental stressors. Thi s information is used to
characterize relative levels of human disturbance, identify sources and causes of degradation, and verify that candidate reference we tlands are actually minimallydisturbed. Currently, annual monitoring is focuse d primarily on emergent and aquatic2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 109 

### bed wetland habitat, including freshwater lacustrin e and riverine fringe wetlands. Additional wetland types may be monitored in the fu ture as resources allow.

Wetland Monitoring and Assessment Activities for 20 10 and 2011

In 2010, DEP conducted biological monitoring and as sessment of 25 wetland sites, focusing on southern Maine basins including the Pre sumpscot and Saco River watersheds. DEP also conducted wetland monitoring in Baxter State Park as part of

an initiative to obtain baseline condition assessme nts of the park’s aquatic resources. Biological monitoring in 2011 was focused in the Pe nobscot River basin and included

19 wetland sites.

The DEP Biological Monitoring Program also particip ated in EPA’s National Wetland Condition Assessment (NWCA) during the summer of 20 11. The NWCA is a probability-based survey designed to produce region al and national estimates of wetland ecological integrity and rank common enviro nmental stressors causing wetland degradation. DEP served as Maine’s coordin ating agency for the NWCA, and partnered with the Wells National Estuarine Researc h Reserve and the Maine Natural Areas Program to intensively sample 14 sites across the State. DEP biologists were actively involved in development and review of the NWCA study design and field protocols, and will continue to provide input durin g the data analysis and assessment phase of the project through participation in EPA’s National Wetlands Monitoring and Assessment Work Group. Additional information abou t the NWCA may be found at http://water.epa.gov/type/wetlands/assessment/surve y/index.cfm



## .



# Summary of Wetland Aquatic Life Use Attainment

Aquatic life use attainment decisions for wetlands included in the 2012 Integrated Report are based on expert judgment of DEP biologis ts using statutory narrative aquatic life use criteria described above as guidan ce. DEP biologists examined macroinvertebrate data for each wetland site sample d to evaluate structure and function of the resident biological community, and assigned an attained water quality class by consensus. For Category 3-5 wetlands that are located in a river/stream or lake/pond (e.g. a wetland that occurs in a slow-flo wing section of a stream), any impairments, for example to the fish consumption us e, that are listed for the related river/stream or lake/pond assessment unit (AU) are also assigned to the wetland AU. For Category 3-5 wetlands that are not located in a river/stream or lake/pond, DEP biologists will decide on a case-by-case basis whet her any other impairments should

be carried over or not.

EPA requires that each assessment unit is placed in to one of five categories (Section 4-1, Assessment Methodology). A summary of wetland attainment status follows, and also appears in Table 4-5. Information on the stat us of individual wetland assessment units may be found in Appendix IV: Maine Wetlands A ssessment.

Category 1: Wetlands attaining all designated uses and water quality standards,

and no use is threatened. No wetland segments are assigned to Category 1 si nce present assessment only addresses attainment of aqu atic life use. Other designated2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 110 

### uses were not evaluated and the DEP is still consid ering appropriate criteria and

methods.

Category 2: Wetlands attaining some of the designa ted use(s), no use is threatened, and insufficient data or no data and in formation is available to determine if the remaining uses are attained or thr eatened (with presumption that all uses are attained). DEP determined with high confidence that these wate rs attain their assigned aquatic life use based on aqu atic macroinvertebrates. In addition, a review of other available data includin g physical/chemical attributes, fieldbased stressor information and spatial data do not indicate potential causes of impairment. Category 2 contains 78 wetland assessm ent units.

Category 3: Wetlands with insufficient data and inf ormation to determine if designated uses are attained (with presumption that one or more uses may be impaired). There are 11 wetland assessment units totaling 966 acres listed in Category 3. Wetlands assigned to this category hav e conflicting or insufficient

available data to determine attainment status with relative certainty. For the sites listed, there is significant evidence of human stre ssors, with the presumed likelihood they are causing impairment of one or more uses. O ne of the assessment units listed in Category 3 (125 acres) is also listed in Categor y 5D for legacy DDT sources.

Category 4: Wetlands impaired or threatened for on e or more designated uses, but do not require development of a TMDL. Five wetland assessment units totaling 51 acres are listed in Category 4A for aquatic life uses (TMDL Completed). All of these are covered under the statewide % Impervious Cover TMDL. Two additional wetland assessment units totaling 218 acres are lis ted in category 4B (Expected to Attain Standards). These sites do not currently at tain their aquatic life uses based on an evaluation of the aquatic life standards ascribe d to their assigned classification (38 MRSA §465), but pollution control requirements are expected to result in attainment once implemented. One of these 4B wetland assessme nt units (212 acres) is located downstream of a former Superfund site and is also l isted in Category 4B for benzene and in Category 5D for legacy PCBs and dioxin. The other 4B wetland assessment unit (6 acres) has court-ordered controls in place.

Category 5: Wetlands that are impaired or threaten ed for one or more designated uses by a pollutant(s), TMDL development is required. Two wetland assessment units totaling 4.5 acres are listed in C ategory 5A (TMDL Required). These sites do not currently attain aquatic life us es based on an evaluation of the aquatic life standards ascribed to their assigned c lassification (38 MRSA §465), and there are no pollution control requirements in plac e that are expected to result in

attainment. Two additional wetland assessment unit s totaling 337 acres are listed in Category 5D (Impaired by Legacy Pollutants). Of th ese, one assessment unit (212 acres) is listed for both dioxin and PCBs, and is a lso listed in category 4B for wetland

benthic macroinvertebrate bioassessments and benzen e. The other 5D assessment unit (125 acres) is listed for DDT, and is also lis ted in Category 3 for wetland benthic

macroinvertebrate bioassessments.



# E XTENT OF 

# W ETLAND 

# R ESOURCES



# Wetland Loss Tracking in Maine’s Organized Towns

Contact: Mike Mullen, DEP BLWQ, Division of Land Re source Regulation (DLRR)

Tel: (207) 446-1611 email: Mike.Mullen@maine.gov2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 111 

### Maine DEP tracks permitted wetland losses and mitig ation in the organized townships through an application tracking system. When appli cations for any wetland alterations are logged in, the amount of fill or area to be alt ered is also entered by wetland type and geographical location. This system enables the Department to monitor and report on annual wetland losses. Wetland mitigation and D EP permitted impacts for 2010

and 2011 are summarized in Tables 5-1 and 5-2 below

.

Table 5-2 Wetland Mitigation Totals in the Organize d Townships

Source: Maine DEP Wetland Loss Tracking System

Area of Mitigation (Acres) – 2010 (1/1/2010-12/31/2 010)

Wetland Type In Lieu

Fee* Creation Enhancement Preservation Restoration Total

Forested X 0 0 21.2 5.45 26.65
Other/Mixed X, X 0 11.64 844.74 0 856.38
Emergent 0 0 2.0 2.18 4.18

Scrub-shrub 0 0 4.0 0.83 4.83

Vernal Pool 0 0 0 0 0 Open water 0 0 0 0 0

Riverine 0 0 0 0 0

Wet Meadow 0 0 0 0 0
Upland 0 0 0 0 0

Intertidal (vegetated) 0 0 0 0 0

Intertidal (other) X, X 0 0 0 0 0 Intertidal (mudflat) 0 0 0.02 0 0.02 Subtidal (other) 0 0 0 0 0

Total 0 11.64 871.96 8.46 892.06

*An “X” in this column indicates that an in lieu fe e (ILF) payment was received for an impact to that type of wetland. Each “X” indicates a separate ILF payment. For example, in 2010 there was one ILF payment for forested wet land impact.



### Table 5-1 (continued). Wetland Mitigation Totals i n the Organized Townships. Area of Mitigation (Acres) – 2011 (1/1/2011-12/31/2 011)

Wetland Type In Lieu

Fee* Creation Enhancement Preservation Restoration Total

Forested X,X,X,

X 0 0 68.34 0.20 68.54

Other/Mixed X,X 0 0 16.78 0 16.78
Emergent X 0 0 11.82 0 11.82

Scrub-shrub 0 3.65 10.98 0 14.63
Vernal pool X 0 0 0 0 0 Open water 0 0 0 0 0

Riverine 0 0 0 0 0

Wet Meadow X 0 0 0 0 0
Upland 0 0 24.9 0 24.9 Intertidal (other) 0 0 0 0 0 Subtidal (other) 0 0 0 0 0

Total 9 0 3.65 132.82 0.2 136.67

*An “X” in this column indicates that an in lieu fe e (ILF) payment was received for an impact to that type of wetland. Each “X” indicates a separate ILF payment. For example, in 2011 there were four ILF payments for forested wetland impact.2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 112 Table 5-2 Permitted Wetland Impact Totals in the Or ganized Townships

Source: Maine DEP Wetland Loss Tracking System

Area Impacted (Acres) – 2010 (1/1/2010-12/31/2010)

Wetland Type Cranberry

permit Full NRPA

permit Tier I Tier II Total

Filled Altered Filled Altered Filled Altered Filled Altered Filled Altered
Emergent 0 0 0.23 0.01 0.02 0.00 0.96 0.00 1.21 0.01

Forested 0 0 6.11 6.05 6.11 2.97 0.76 1.91 12.98 10.93

Great Pond X X 0.00 0.02 X X X X 0.00 0.02

Intertidal (mudflat) X X 0.41 0.35 X X X X 0.41 0.35

Intertidal (other) X X 0.39 1.14 X X X X 0.39 1.14

Intertidal (vegetated) X X 0.08 0.02 X X X X 0.08 0.02

Open Water 0 0 0.00 4.4 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 4.40

Other/Mixed 0 0 88.77 39.83 3.00 3.56 2.35 1.03 94.12 44.42

Peatland 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Riverine X X 0.32 0.02 X X X X 0.32 0.02

Scrub-shrub 0 0 0.22 0.58 2.20 0.19 0.00 0.00 2.42 0.77

Subtidal (aquatic bed) X X 0.00 0.00 X X X X 0.00 0.00

Subtidal (other) X X 0.01 0.00 X X X X 0.01 0.00

Wet Meadow 0 0 0.00 0.00 1.61 0.25 0.00 0.00 1.61 0.25
Upland 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Total 0 0 96.54 52.42 12.94 6.97 4.07 2.94 113.6 62.33
X = Tier review not available for projects located in these resources



### Table 5-2 (continued). Permitted Wetland Impacts i n the Organized Townships.

Area Impacted (Acres) – 2011 (1/1/2011-12/31/2011)

Wetland Type Cranberry

permit Full NRPA

permit Tier I Tier II Total

Filled Altered Filled Altered Filled Altered Filled Altered Filled Altered
Emergent 0 0 0.04 0.11 0.15 0.13 0.32 0.00 0.51 0.24

Forested 0 0 0.60 5.33 4.57 0.77 2.07 0.09 7.24 6.19

Great Pond X X 0.04 0.49 X X X X 0.04 0.49

Intertidal (mudflat) X X 0.04 0.25 X X X X 0.04 0.25

Intertidal (other) X X 0.22 0.92 X X X X 0.22 0.92

Intertidal (vegetated) X X 0.00 0.19 X X X X 0.00 0.19

Open Water 0 0 0.05 0.00 X X X X 0.05 0.00

Other/Mixed 0 0 1.91 0.10 1.53 0.15 0.00 0.00 3.44 0.25

Peatland 0 0 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Riverine X X 0.06 6.07 X X X X 0.06 6.07

Scrub-shrub 0 0 0.30 0.84 0.60 0.36 0.62 0.00 1.52 1.2

Subtidal (aquatic bed) X X 0.00 0.00 X X X X 0.00 0.00

Subtidal (other) X X 0.43 0.34 X X X X 0.43 0.34

Wet Meadow 0 0 2.06 0.00 0.66 0.07 0.00 0.00 2.72 0.07
Upland 0 0 0.01 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.01 0.00

Total 0 0 5.76 14.64 7.51 1.48 3.01 0.09 16.28 16.21
X = Tier review not available for projects located in these resources2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 113 

# C HAPTER 

# 6 G ROUNDWATER 

# M ONITORING 

# & A SSESSMENTS

Contact: Marianne DuBois, DEP BLWQ, Division of Wat ershed Management (DWM)

Tel: (207) 485-1402 email: marianne.s.dubois@maine.gov

Related Website: http://www.maine.gov/dep/water/groundwater/index.ht ml



# O VERVIEW

Maine's groundwater may be threatened by contaminat ion, particularly in unforested areas, which comprise approximately 11% of the Stat e. Important sources of groundwater contamination in Maine include disposal activities such as landfills and septic systems, leaking storage facilities, agricul ture, and sites contaminated with spilled hazardous materials or by previously unregu lated activities.

Generally, the groundwater supply in Maine is adequ ate. The total withdrawal of groundwater by all water users is less than one per cent of the annual groundwater recharge each year. The remaining annual groundwat er recharge is lost through evapotranspiration or discharges to ponds, lakes, r ivers, and streams. Seasonal variations in water tables can lead to local ground water shortages. The Maine Drought Task Force (convened by the Maine Emergency Management Agency) publishes information on Maine groundwater and surf ace water levels at the following

website: http://www.state.me.us/rfac/

Groundwater is withdrawn from three basic types of aquifers in Maine: unconsolidated glaciofluvial deposits (stratified drift or sand an d gravel aquifers), till, and fractured bedrock. The stratified drift deposits are the mos t favorable for development of largevolume water supply wells, but these deposits are l imited in size and distribution (less than about 10% of the state). Discontinuous bedroc k aquifers underlie the entire state
and are used for domestic, commercial, industrial, and agricultural purposes, and for small public supplies such as schools, restaurants, and summer camps. Wells in till do not generally yield large quantities of water and a re most often used for individual domestic water supplies.



# Background

The protection of Maine groundwater is an issue of concern at all levels of government. Serious groundwater pollution problems that have occurred throughout the State and elsewhere have heightened the need fo r protecting groundwater supplies. A few municipalities and regional planni ng agencies have conducted groundwater quality assessment studies, but program s for comprehensive assessment of the quality of groundwater resources are needed. Maine's groundwater protection programs emphasize three areas of effort:

1. State interagency coordination of groundwater pr ograms;
2. Assessment of groundwater protection problems, i ncluding enhancement of the Environmental and Geographic Analysis Database (EGA D); and

3. Statutory changes and building upon implemented state groundwater protection programs to increase groundwater protection and ris k reduction.

Please refer to page 124 of the 2006 Integrated Wat er Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report for a table of State groundwater protection programs (Table 6-1). http://www.maine.gov/dep/water/monitoring/305b/2006 /2006_Final_305b_Report.pdf2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 114 

# A SSESSMENT OF 

# G ROUNDWATER 

# Q UALITY

In Maine, groundwater is classified by its suitabil ity for drinking water purposes. Under the Maine Water Classification Program, groundwater is classified as either potable (GW-A) or unpotable (GW-B). Water is unpotable whe n the concentrations of chemical compounds detected exceed either the Maxim um Contaminant Levels (MCL) or the Maximum Exposure Guidelines (MEG) as defined in the Rules Relating to Drinking Water administered by the Maine Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS). Although there are many localities where g roundwater is unpotable and highly contaminated, no groundwater is currently cl assified GW-B. The state is not currently attempting to designate non-attainment ar eas.



# Aquifer Risk Assessment

Contact: John Hopeck, DEP BLWQ, Division of Enviro nmental Assessment (DEA)

Tel: (207) 215-4463 email: john.t.hopeck@maine.gov

The state is actively assessing ways to use existin g groundwater data and spatial data to evaluate relative risk to existing and potential water supplies. The cumulative impact of residential, commercial, and industrial developm ent on 300 of the significant sand and gravel aquifers mapped by the Maine Geological Survey is being evaluated through the Aquifer Quantitative Use Assessment, or AQUA, Index. Non-point source risks due to population and travel corridors are tr eated as a function of the area of impervious surface in the aquifer polygon; road den sity is also used as a surrogate for population density and a range of associated possib le non-point discharges. The remaining acreage was divided by a factor based on the presence and relative risk of petroleum tanks (underground/aboveground storage ta nks (USTs or ASTs)), former tank locations (i.e. possible legacy of contaminati on) and potential or actual sources of contamination to groundwater (as derived from Envir onmental Geographic Analysis Database (EGAD) Site Data). The sum of these values is divided by the total acreage of the aquifer to give the dimensionless AQUA index , which can also be expressed as a percent. An AQUA index of 1 or 100% means no impa ct. In general, larger overall acreage in combination with remoteness or other lim its on development results in a higher AQUA index. This index may be used to assess the relative risk to future or present municipal, private, or commercial drinking water uses and to identify those aquifers most at risk from commercial/industrial de velopment or residential pressures.

Overall, 77 high yield aquifer locations (26%) are non-impacted (4,881 acres or 16% of total acres), 145 (48%) are less than 50% impact ed (8,540 acres or 29% of total acres), and 78 (26%) are more than 50% impacted (13 ,325 acres or 55% of total

acres (29,746). Of the non-impacted high yield sand and gravel aquifers, 18% have public water supply wells. Of the aquifers with AQU A values between 1.0 and 0.5, 28% have public water supply wells, while of those with AQUA values less than 0.5, 38% have public water supply wells.

Additional work on risk assessment includes analysi s of the effect of road salt on residential well water quality in seventy-seven are as spatially distributed throughout Maine. This work confirms the dependence of chlorid e concentration on slope and distance from road indicated by previous Department studies, and includes additional2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 115 

### factors in the analysis, such as slope direction, s implified hydrologic soil groupings, surficial geology, and bedrock geology. Chloride-co ncentration data were obtained from pre-construction well sampling conducted by Ma ine DOT from 2003 through 2008; the analysis removes outliers from this data set and develops a risk model using

data from 968 wells. The set of all normalized data shows a distribution pattern of

chloride concentrations with distance from the road centerline, with highest concentrations occurring on the downslope side but within 75 feet of the centerline of the road. Preliminary results suggest that the dis tribution of chloride concentrations with distance from the road centerline at any study site falls under an envelope curve
that is a form of the normal distribution, with the parameters controlling the shape of the curve controlled by local variables, such as sl ope, fracture orientation, and dominant hydrologic soil groups. Work to test and r efine this model is ongoing.



# Aquifer Characterization Activities

Contact: Tom Weddle, DOC BGNA, Maine Geological Sur vey, Applied Geology Division Director, Hydrogeology Section

Tel: (207) 287-2801 email: thomas.k.weddle@maine.gov

Related Websites:

Aquifer Fact Sheet www.maine.gov/doc/nrimc/mgs/explore/water/facts/aqu ifer.htm

Aquifer Mapping: http://www.maine.gov/doc/nrimc/mgs/explore/water/fa cts/jun01.htm

The Maine Geological Survey (MGS) is at the "averag e characteristics" stage in characterizing the physical and chemical attributes of the State's stratified drift aquifers. While site specific data do exist for so me aquifers (primarily in the vicinity of ground water resource evaluation projects and conta mination sites), complete physical pictures of most aquifer systems do not exist. Har d data on the exact natural chemical processes controlling groundwater chemical evolutio n that occur along a flow path in sand and gravel aquifers are also lacking. MGS has some ambient water quality data but has not yet fully characterized any particular aquifer system.

MGS has begun preliminary examination of annual phy sical groundwater data from selected wells at DEP monitoring sites in both sand and gravel aquifers and in bedrock aquifers. This effort is to supplement data in the statewide groundwater monitoring system conducted by the US Geological Survey as par t of its annual groundwater monitoring program.

Please refer to page 126 of the 2006 Integrated Wat er Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report for further discussion of aquifer characterization activities. http://www.maine.gov/dep/water/monitoring/305b/2006 /2006_Final_305b_Report.pdf



# W ATER 

# R ESOURCES 

# P LANNING 

# C OMMITTEE

Contacts: Robert Marvinney, State Geologist, Maine Geological Survey

Tel: (207) 287-2804 email: robert.g.marvinney@maine.gov

Mark Margerum, Bureau of Land and Water Quality, MD EP

Tel: (207) 287-7842 email: mark.t.margerum@maine.gov

Related websites: http://maine.gov/doc/nrimc/mgs/explore/water/planni ng/index.htm2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 116 

### In 2007 the Maine Legislature enacted “An Act Conce rning the Sustainable Use of and Planning for Water Resources” (P.L. 2007, Chapter 3 99). This law created the Water Resources Planning Committee, which is chaired by R obert Marvinney, Director of the Maine Geological Survey. This stakeholder group is charged with identifying, researching and addressing potential water use issu es in watersheds statewide. With guidance from the Committee, the Maine Geological S urvey completed work on the water resource investigations in the Freeport water sheds that host the public water supply wells for the Town of Freeport. New work ha s begun to improve groundwater

and surface water information for the Branch Brook watershed, which includes the water supply for the towns of Kennebunk, Kennebunkp ort, and Wells in York County. The law also created a new licensing requirement fo r “Significant Groundwater Wells”

under the Natural Resources Protection Act. Under this provision large groundwater withdrawals are now regulated by the DEP.



# Significant Groundwater Wells

Contact: John Hopeck, DEP BLWQ, Division of Enviro nmental Assessment (DEA)

Tel: (207) 215-4463 email: john.t.hopeck@maine.gov

Related Website: http://www.maine.gov/dep/land/nrpa/significant_grou ndwater_wells/#intro

Although Maine has abundant groundwater when rechar ge and use are averaged over the state, certain large wells, and the density of smaller wells in certain areas, may have local adverse effects on protected resources a nd wells on nearby properties. Installation and operation of large gr oundwater extraction wells, with certain exceptions, is now regulated under the Natu ral Resources Protection Act. Applicants must demonstrate that the extracti on of groundwater will not have an undue unreasonable effect on waters of the State, g roundwater-related natural resources, and existing uses, including, but not li mited to, public or private wells. Applicants must submit adequate background data, including stream flows and wetted perimeter and wetland water levels, pump tes t data and analysis, and a sitespecific plan for monitoring groundwater elevation, precipitation, and other relevant hydrogeologic criteria. The Department must conside r both the direct effects of the proposed withdrawal and its effects in combination with existing water withdrawals. Ongoing work by the Maine Geological Survey is evaluating whether or not the cumulative impacts of groundwater withdrawa ls by wells of all sizes in some larger watersheds may exceed the minimum amounts re quired to supply all existing uses, including both water supply and streamflow, i n some watersheds.



# Overview of Groundwater Contamination Sources

Most groundwater contamination in Maine originates from nonpoint source pollution rather than point source pollution. The following d iscussion focuses primarily on nonpoint contamination sources that appear to be re sponsible for most groundwater contamination in the State: agriculture, hazardous substance sites, spill sites, landfills, leaking underground storage tanks, septic systems, and shallow well injection.

Please refer to the 2006 report beginning on page 1 27 for additional background
information on other sources of contamination, and for additional information on the

sources listed above.2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 117 

### http://www.maine.gov/dep/water/monitoring/305b/2006 /2006_Final_305b_Report.pdf



# P ETROLEUM 

# S TORAGE 

# T ANKS AND 

# P RODUCT 

# S PILLS



## Underground Tanks

Contact: Bruce Hunter, DEP BRWM, Division of Techni cal Services

Tel: (207) 287-7672 email: Bruce.E.Hunter@maine.gov

Related Websites:

General Information: www.maine.gov/dep/waste/ust/index.html

Rules for UST Facilities: www.maine.gov/sos/cec/rules/06/096/096c691.doc

Rules for Siting of Oil Storage Facilities:

www.maine.gov/sos/cec/rules/06/096/096c692.doc

Leaking Underground Tanks and Drinking Water Wells

The Leaking Underground Storage Tank (LUST) Remedia tion Priority List tracks clean-up sites and provides an objective scoring sy stem to determine which sites receive scarce clean-up dollars. In general, the h igher the score, the more quickly resources are allocated to clean up a site. Table 6-1 shows the number of sites placed on this Priority List and the change since the prev ious 305b report.

Table 6-1 Remediation Priority List Sites – Number of Sites as of December 2011

Total Number of Sites Since 1994 Number of Sites Closed Number of Active Sites

2345 1834 510

Numerical Change and Percent Change from 2 years ag o (previous 305b report)

350 / 18% increase 303 / 20% increase 49/ 10.6% inc rease



### The sites on the priority list are limited to those contaminated by petroleum products (as opposed to all hazardous chemicals and all haza rdous wastes), but the sites are not limited to USTs. Many of the sites on the prio rity list are home heating oil tanks, which are typically aboveground storage tanks (ASTs ). Table 6-2 shows the number of private water wells and public water supplies co ntaminated by petroleum products or threatened with contamination by petroleum produ cts as of December 2011. Note

that one active site can contaminate or threaten mo re than one well.2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 118 Table 6-2 Current (December 2011) Remediation Prio rity List Sites – Contamination Summary

Number of

Contaminated Wells* Number of Contaminated Public Water Supplies Number of

Threatened Wells* Number of Threatened Public Water Supplies

187 3 561 10

Numerical Change and Percent Change from 2 years ag o (previous 305b report)

-26/ 12% decrease 0 / 0% change -96 / 15% decrease 5 / 100% increase

* Does not include public water supplies.



### On December 1, 2009 new petroleum cleanup guideline s went into effect based on the toxicity of petroleum fractions in addition to targ et compounds typically found in petroleum. The remediation approach is based on th e analytical method that fractionates petroleum using two different tests pi oneered by Massachusetts. The tests are: Volatile Petroleum Hydrocarbons (VPH) an d Extractable Petroleum Hydrocarbons (EPH). These tests will replace GRO ( Gasoline Range Organics) and DRO (Diesel Range Organics) that have been used by Maine for the past 20 years or more. The new guidelines are described in a docume nt titled “Remediation Guidelines for Petroleum Contaminated Sites in Maine”, Novembe r 20, 2009.

Legislative Changes

For several years the standards for underground sto rage tanks (UST) facilities were more stringent than those of aboveground storage ta nks (AST) facilities. In 2010 the siting restrictions for new AST facilities became t he same as those of UST facilities. New facilities must be over 300 feet from a private well, over 1000 feet from a public well, and cannot be over a mapped sand and gravel a quifer or in the mapped source water protection area of a public water supply.

As of January 1, 2011, the legal loophole was close d that had allowed underground piping systems attached to ASTs and installed befor e June of 1991 to operate without

leak detection. So in addition to ASTs and USTs ha ving the same siting criteria, the underground piping at both and ASTs and USTs must n ow meet the same requirements as well.



## Above Ground Storage Tank Spill Information

Contact: David McCaskill, DEP BRWM, Division of Te chnical Services

Tel: (207) 287-7056 email: david.mccaskill@maine.gov

Related Website: http://www.maine.gov/dep/waste/abovegroundtanks/ind ex.htm l

ASTs at Single Family Residences

Contact: Peter Moulton, DEP BRWM, Division of Tech nical Services

Tel: (207) 287-8161 email: peter.t.moulton@maine.gov

http://www.maine.gov/dep/waste/abovegroundtanks/rep lacement.html

Maine averages over one heating oil spill per day f rom ASTs at single family

residences. One reason for this statistic is that ASTs are commonly used in Maine.2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 119 

### The 2000 U.S. Census figures show that approximatel y 78% of Maine households are heated with oil. The vast majority of these househ olds have 275 gallon ASTs located

either in the basement or outside the residence.

Oil or Hazardous Materials Spills

Contact: Lyle Hall, DEP BRWM, Division of Program Services

Tel: (207) 287-7499 lyle.s.hall@maine.gov

Related Websites: http://www.maine.gov/dep/rwm/hoss /

For users who would want to download raw data and t hen run statistics of their own:

http://www.maine.gov/dep/ftp/hoss/

The Department's Response Division responded to app roximately 5,699 reports of oil or hazardous material events between January 2009 a nd December 2010. Of these 5,699 events, 1,109 do not have completed reports a nd, therefore, are not included in this report. An estimated 89% of these responses in volved discharges of petroleum products to soil and/or groundwater. During this pe riod, response services personnel discovered approximately 40 wells that had been con taminated from these spills. Due to further investigation and report completion, the se figures are subject to change. Table 6-3 provides information on the 4,590 spills that had completed spill reports.

Table 6-3 Oil and Hazardous Material Reports - Jan uary 2009 through December 2010

Spill Location Type Percent of Total Reports Number of

Reports Number of Wells

Impacted

Business 20.41% 937 3

Government 4.90% 225 0

Other 2.68% 123 0

Residential 30.20% 1,386 30

School 1.48% 68 0

Terminal 9.48% 435 7 Transportation System 20.74% 952 0
Utility 10.11% 464 0

Totals 100% 4590 40 

### Please refer to page 130 of the 2006 Integrated Wat er Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report for further information on oil sp ill reporting in Maine. http://www.maine.gov/dep/water/monitoring/305b/2006 /2006_Final_305b_Report.pdf



# A GRICULTURE

Contact: Matthew Randall, Maine Department of Agric ulture, Office of Agricultural Resource Development, Agricultural Compliance Progr am
Tel: (207) 287-7708 email: matthew.randall@maine.gov

Related Website: www.maine.gov/agriculture/narr/compliance.html

In 2002, the total estimated cropland in Maine was 536,839 acres. The agricultural community uses chemicals for pest control and weed eradication; in addition, many farmers apply chemical fertilizers and manure to th eir agricultural lands. These are all2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 120 

### potential sources of ground water contamination. T he major areas of chemical application include potato fields in Aroostook Coun ty, blueberry barrens in Hancock and Washington Counties, and apple orchards and for age cropland in Central Maine. Pesticides and nitrates are the main categories of agricultural groundwater

contaminants.



## Maine's Nutrient Management Law

Contact: Mark Hedrich, Nutrient Management Coordina tor, Maine Department of Agriculture, Division of Agricultural Resource Deve lopment

Tel: (207) 287-7608 email: mark.hedrich@maine.gov

Related Website: http://www.maine.gov/agriculture/narr/nutrientmanag ement.html

Impacts of the Law : Implementing nutrient management on farms can be tter protect ground and surface water. By applying manure and o ther nutrients only in the amounts needed for crop production and in a way tha t will consider nearby sensitive resources, fewer nutrients will leave the site and impact water quality. Studies of Maine farms where nutrient management practices hav e been implemented show that water quality within a watershed can be significant ly improved. In order to further these goals, livestock operations permits have been issued to eighteen Maine farms meeting certain criteria during the past several ye ars. Twenty-two nutrient management plans were developed for new operations, and 36 plans were updated in 2011. In addition, farm composting of on-farm and off-farm nutrients is expanding, with 22 compost management plans having been develo ped recently. The Department’s Chapter 211 Carcass Disposal Rules have been updated and will be adopted early in 2012. For more information on Main e’s Nutrient Management Law, follow the link above to the Nutrient Management Pr ogram webpage maintained by the Department of Agriculture.

Please refer to page 131 of the 2006 Integrated Wat er Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report for more information on the Maine Nutrient Management Program. http://www.maine.gov/dep/water/monitoring/305b/2006 /2006_Final_305b_R eport.pdf



## Pesticides

Contact: Mary E. Tomlinson, Board of Pesticides Con trol (BPC), Maine Department of Agriculture

Tel: (207) 287-7544 email: mary.e.tomlinson@maine. gov

Related Website: http://www.state.me.us/agriculture/pesticides/water /index.htm

Every five to seven years since 1994, the BPC has c onducted a statewide pesticides and groundwater monitoring program to determine the impact of agricultural pesticide use on the quality of ground water. Randomly select ed, private drinking water wells within 1⁄4 mile down gradient of an agricultural crop are sampled. The results of past surveys have indicated that in wells in which pesti cides have been detected, the concentrations of pesticides do not present a healt h threat to the citizens of Maine when compared to the health-based standards establi shed by the USEPA and the Maine Centers for Disease Control. Efforts on the p art of growers to use best2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 121 

### management practices and the trend toward newer che mistry with lower application rates have had positive impacts on the quality of M aine’s groundwater. Beginning in 2011, monitoring will focus on one crop per year, r ather than multiple crops, with repeat sampling every five to seven years to allow for more wells to be sampled. Sampling for hexazinone will be incorporated into t he blueberry rotation, the target crop for 2011.

Results for monitoring from 1994-2006 are summarize d in Table 6-4, below:

Table 6-4 Hexazinone Monitoring - 1994 through 200 6

Sampling Results Spring 1994 Spring 1998 Spring 2002 Spring 2006
Total Number of Samples Collected 20 42 49 46

Number of Positive Detections 15 18 29 32
Percentage with Positive Detections 75% 42.8% 59.2% 69.6% Mean Concentration*(ppb) 1.08 0.41 1.45 .98
Median Concentration (ppb) 0.31 ND 0.43 .34 Highest Reading (ppb) 5.97 2.15 11.41 8.43

*For statistical purposes only, mean concentration was calculated assuming that non detections (ND) we re equal to half of the limit of quantification (LOQ). LOQ = 0 .1 ppb for 2002 samples.



### Please refer to pages 132-133 of the 2006 Integrate d Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report for further information on pestic ides in groundwater. http://www.maine.gov/dep/water/monitoring/305b/2006 /2006_Final_305b_Report.pdf



# L ANDFILLS

Contacts: Paula Clark, DEP BRWM, Division of Solid Waste Management

Tel: (207) 287-7718 email: paula.m.clark@maine.gov

and Ted Wolfe, DEP BRWM, Division of Remediation

Tel: (207) 287-8552 email: theodore.e.wolfe@maine.gov

Related Website: http://www.maine.gov/dep/waste/solidwaste/index.htm l

The Maine Department of Environmental Protection is directed by statute to regulate the location, establishment, construction, expansio n and operation of all solid waste facilities in the state, including landfills.



## Active Landfills

There are currently 41 active, licensed landfills i n the state of Maine (Figure 6-1). The following link will take you to a current file of t hese active landfills: http://www.maine.gov/dep/waste/solidwaste/documents /landfillactive.xls



## Inactive Landfills

Related Website: http://www.maine.gov/dep/waste/solidwaste/index.htm l

A total of 415 municipal landfills have been identi fied in the state. As of December
2010, 397 of these landfills have been closed and c apped (Figure 6-1).2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 122 

### Please refer to pages 133-136 of the 2006 Integrate d Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report for further information on Maine landfills and residual land applications. http://www.maine.gov/dep/water/monitoring/305b/2006 /2006_Final_305b_Report.pdf

Figure 6-1 Active and Inactive Landfills in Maine2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 123 

# R OAD 

# S ALT AND 

# S AND 

# S ALT 

# P ILES

Contacts: Erich Kluck, DEP BLWQ, Division of Water Quality Management (DWQM)

Tel: (207) 592-2068 email: erich.d.kluck@maine.gov

or Judy Gates, Director Environmental Office, Maine Department of Transportation,

Tel: (207) 624-3100 email: env.mainedot@maine.gov

Related Websites: Rules – Chapter 574 and Sand Salt Piles

http://www.maine.gov/dep/water/wd/sandsalt/index.ht ml

DOT information on Plowing and Sanding and Sand/Sal t Building Program

http://www.maine.gov/mdot/csd/mlrc/technical/winter plowsand/ and

http://www.maine.gov/mdot/csd/mlrc/technical/ssbp/

DEP is actively involved with siting of new sand-sa lt buildings and piles and continues to investigate contamination from sand-salt piles o n a case-by-case basis. DEP’s Sand-Salt Storage Area Rule (Chapter 574) prohibits siting of new sand-salt storage areas on significant sand and gravel aquifers, with in source water protection areas of public water supplies and within 300 feet of a priv ate domestic well. MDOT continues to handle complaints related to sand-salt piles tha t they operate, and roads they

maintain.

Please refer to page 137 of the 2006 Integrated Wat er Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report for further information on the pr ogram mentioned above. http://www.maine.gov/dep/water/monitoring/305b/2006 /2006_Final_305b_Report.pdf



# F EDERAL 

# F ACILITIES



# , S UPERFUND



# , B ROWNFIELD



# , V OLUNTARY


# R ESPONSE



# , AND OTHER 

# H AZARDOUS 

# S UBSTANCE 

# S ITES

Contact: David Wright, DEP BRWM, Division of Remed iation
Tel: (207) 287-2651 email: david.w.wright@maine.gov

Related Websites: (Federal EPA Information) http://www.epa.gov/superfund/

(Maine DEP Information) http://www.maine.gov/dep/spills/programs/index.html

As of June 21, 2012, DEP had identified some 1338 h azardous substance sites in Maine (Table 6-5). 40% of which were still in the a ctive stage. The Division of Remediation investigates and mitigates the risk pos ed to public health and the environment from these sites. The Department may u ndertake the investigation and clean-up themselves, or compel responsible parties to undertake the work, through either the state’s uncontrolled sites program (for smaller sites) or with EPA via the federal CERCLA program (the federal Comprehensive E nvironmental Response and Comprehensive Liability Act, aka Superfund) or the Defense State Memorandum of Agreement (DSMOA) for military sites. Additionally , many sites are investigated and remediated under one of two voluntary programs: th e Brownfields Program, which partially funds the work with federal dollars, and Maine’s Voluntary Remedial Action Program (VRAP).2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 124 

### Please refer to pages 91-92 of the 2008 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and

Assessment Report for further information on the pr ograms mentioned above.
http://www.maine.gov/dep/water/monitoring/305b/inde x.htm

Table 6-5 Hazardous Waste Sites, Number and Status

Site Status Program

Brownfields DSMOA Superfund Uncontrolled

Sites VRAP Grand

Total

In Review 10 95 0 13 25 143

Investigation Stage 113 13 1 42 33 202

Remediation Stage 28 7 6 35 41 117

Operation &

Maintenance 2 0 5 44 8 59

No Further Action 52 50 0 159 556 817

Grand Total 205 165 12 293 663 1338



# R ESOURCE 

# C ONSERVATION AND 

# R ECOVERY 

# A CT 

# (RCRA) S ITES

Contact: Stacy Ladner, DEP BRWM, Division of Oil an d Hazardous Waste Facilities Regulation (OHWFR)

Tel: (207) 287-2651 email: stacy.a.ladner@maine.gov

Related Website: http://www.maine.gov/dep/waste/hazardouswaste/index .html

The DEP currently lists approximately 104 sites wit h Hazardous Waste Licenses and

60 sites with interim licenses. Over 60 sites are under investigation for possible ground water or surface water contamination. Thirt y-two of these sites have ground or surface waters that have been contaminated by disch arges of hazardous substances. Nineteen of these 32 facilities have ongoing, activ e remediation.



# S EPTIC 

# S YSTEMS

Contact: James A. Jacobsen, DHHS MCDC&P, Division o f Environmental Health, Drinking Water Program, Subsurface Wastewater Unit

Tel: (207) 287-5695 email: james.jacobsen@maine.gov

Related Website: http://www.maine.gov/dhhs/mecdc/environmentalhealth/plumb/index.htm

The Department of Health and Human Services, Maine Center for Disease Control
and Prevention, Division of Environmental Health, D rinking Water Program,

Subsurface Wastewater Unit and its antecedents have regulated onsite sewage disposal since 1926. This responsibility rests wit h DHHS because the treatment and disposal of human sanitary waste has been historica lly considered a public health

issue. The Subsurface Wastewater Unit within the D ivision of Environmental Health promulgates and administers the Subsurface Wastewat er Disposal Rules. The2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 125 

### Program also maintains microfiche copies of all plu mbing and subsurface wastewater permits that have been issued statewide from 1974 t o 2004. During the period from January through December 2011 the Program processed approximately 9960 internal and external plumbing and subsurface wastewater per mits. Changes to data entry procedures do not allow for reporting from January to December 2009.



## Nitrates and Septic Systems

The Health and Environmental Testing Laboratory (HE TL) database contains the results of water tests done on private wells. This database provides the largest sample of private well nitrate concentrations in th e state. Assuming that the HETL database for nitrate-N represents Maine ground wate r quality, data from January 2009 to December 2010 indicate approximately 98% of well s sampled have concentrations below 5 mg/L, well below the 10 mg/L drinking water standard for nitrate-N (Table 6- 6). This percentage has remained steady for the pa st few reporting cycles.

Table 6-6 Nitrate-N Frequency Distributions

Nitrate-N (mg/L) HETL Database 1

(percent) HETL Database 2

(percent) HETL Database 3

(percent) HETL Database 4

(percent)

0.00 to 2.50 91.9 93.7 

### 93.9 94.5

2.51 to 5.00 5.6 4.5 

### 4.2 3.8

5.01 to 7.50 2.0 1.1 

### 1.2 1.3

7.51 to 10.00 0.5 0.5 

### 0.4 0.4

Greater than 10.0 0.0 0.2 

### 0.3 0.0

# of Analyses 2,197 7,100 6,000 8711

1 HETL database for private well analyses between 1/1 /04 and 5/31/05.

2 HETL database for private well analyses between 1/1 /06 and 5/31/07.

8 HETL database for private well analyses between 1/1 /08 and 5/31/09.

4 HETL database for private well analyses between 1/5 /09 and 12/31/10.



## Bacteria

Private well testing for bacteria identifies a grea ter contamination potential from bacteria than from nitrate. In public and private drinking water supplies, coliform

bacteria are used as the indicator of microbial con tamination. The Primary Drinking

Water Standard for total coliform bacteria is 0 col onies per 100 ml.

Table 6-7 shows that larger percentages of dug well s test positive for bacteria than drilled wells. This lends support to the belief th at dug wells are more susceptible to

bacterial contamination than drilled wells. Table 6-8 shows recent well testing data, however HETL no longer distinguishes between dug an d drilled wells in its reporting.2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 126 Table 6-7 Wells testing positive for E. coli or to tal coliform

Well Type HETL Database 1960

- 1990 HETL Database 1/04

- 5/05 HETL Database 6/06

- 8/06 1

% wells positive for

total Coliform or E. Coli % wells positive for

total Coliform or E. Coli % wells positive for

total Coliform or E. Coli
Dug 52% 32% 35%

Drilled 24% 14% 16%

1 Only Data available from HETL which distinguishes t he well type was from this time period in 2006. HET L stopped collecting well type data after 2006.



### Table 6-8 Wells testing positive for E. coli or tot al coliform 1/08-12/10

Test Type HETL Database 1/1/08

- 5/31/09 HETL Database 1/5/09

- 12/31/10

Total number of tests % wells positive Total number of tests % wells positive
Coliform 7715 25.7 % 10,856 33.0%

E. Coli 7694 2.3 % 10,856 3.5%



### Please refer to pages 138-140 of the 2006 Integrate d Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report for further information on nitrat es, bacteria, and septic systems in

Maine. http://www.maine.gov/dep/water/monitoring/305b/inde x.htm



# S HALLOW 

# W ELL 

# I NJECTION AND THE 

# U NDERGROUND 

# I NJECTION


# C ONTROL 

# (UIC) P ROGRAM

Contact: Erich Kluck, DEP BLWQ, Division of Water Q uality Management (DWQM)

Tel: (207) 592-2068 email: erich.kluck@maine.gov

Related Websites:

UIC Program: http://www.maine.gov/dep/water/wd/uic/ index.html

Rules: http://www.maine.gov/sos/cec/rules/06/096/096c543.d oc

The underground discharge of pollutants by shallow well injection has been illegal in Maine since 1983 when the State adopted the Federal Underground Injection Control (UIC) regulations. The revised rule for UIC was ad opted by the BEP in September 2006 and the Primacy package was sent to the US EPA in October of 2006. Table 6- 9 lists information on numbers of inspections and r egistrations for the federal fiscal years 2008-2010.

Table 6-9 Underground Injection Control Program In formation

Federal Fiscal

Year Wells Addressed Wells Licensed Non-UIC

violations Inspections and

Follow-ups

FFY 2008 44 0 48 317

FFY2009 28 0 0 245

FFY 2010 26 5 20 295

Q 1, FFY 2011 0 0 0 02012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 127 

# O THER 

# P ROGRAMS

Please refer to pages 142-144 of the 2006 Integrate d Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report for further information on progra ms which may monitor for affects to groundwater from the following activ ities.

http://www.maine.gov/dep/water/monitoring/305b/2006 /2006_Final_305b_Report.pdf



## Stormwater Infiltration

Contact: John Hopeck, DEP BLWQ, Division of Enviro nmental Assessment (DEA)

Tel: (207) 215-4463 email: John.T.Hopeck@maine.gov

Use of infiltration as a stormwater management tech nique is common in many regions, but is practical in Maine only in the limi ted areas underlain by glacial sand and gravel deposits. These aquifers contain large volumes of easily extracted water, but are highly vulnerable to contamination. Ground water monitoring at large

commercial and industrial sites shows that the volu me of pollutants discharged to these infiltration systems generally exceeds the tr eatment capacity of the soil and aquifer. Chloride is the most common pollutant, bu t data also indicate that changes in chemical conditions in the infiltration systems can release accumulated metals and other pollutants to the underlying aquifer over tim e. These data are consistent with findings in other states and in the European Union, and have been cited by EPA in a recent summary of stormwater recharge methods. Ongo ing work on stormwater management rules is intended to encourage infiltrat ion, where geologically feasible, from low-pollutant sources, while discouraging conc entrated discharges to groundwater from large areas of connected imperviou s surface. Groundwater monitoring will continue at currently-monitored sit es.



## Metallic Mining

Contact: Mark Stebbins, DEP BLWQ, Division of Land Resource Regulation (DLRR)

Tel: (207) 822-6367 email: Mark.N.Stebbins@maine.gov

Related Website: http://www.maine.gov/dep/land/mining/index.html

Currently there is no metallic mineral exploration activity occurring in the State.



## Gravel Pits

Contact: Mark Stebbins, DEP BLWQ, Division of Land Resource Regulation (DLRR)

Tel: (207) 822-6367 email: Mark.N.Stebbins@maine.gov

Related Website: http://www.maine.gov/dep/land/mining/index.html

The Maine DEP has licensed 779 mining sites (gravel pits & rock quarries). In 2008, the Legislature enacted the Wellhead Protection Law to protect drinking water wells from contamination by oil or hazardous substances. The law accomplishes this purpose by restricting the siting of facilities tha t, by their nature, pose an unacceptable risk to groundwater quality and therefore should be kept away, if at all possible, from drinking water supplies, including significant sand and gravel aquifers. During2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 128 

### implementation of this law, the department became a ware of a conflict between the law and the use of fuel storage tanks in gravel pit s. Specifically, the rules prohibit the installation of an oil storage facility on a signif icant sand and gravel aquifer mapped by the Maine Geological Survey. Approximately 55 % (4 21) of DEP-licensed gravel pits are located on mapped sand and gravel aquifers.

In response to this conflict, the Legislature direc ted the Department through Public Law 2011, Chapter 26, to amend its Chapter 378 Vari ance Criteria for the Excavation of Rock, Borrow, Topsoil, Clay or Silt and the Perf ormance Standards for the Storage of Petroleum Products, (06-096 CMR 378) to allow li censed mining operations to store a small amount of diesel fuel on mapped significant sand and gravel aquifers. Specifically, the proposed amendments would allow f or up to 2 above ground diesel fuel tanks in a single location with an aggregate c apacity not to exceed 1,100 gallons (doubled wall tanks, installed with all safety feat ures, O&M procedures, etc.) without obtaining a variance as currently required under de partment rules.



## Radioactive Waste Storage and Disposal Sites

Contact: Tom Hillman, DHHS Maine CDC, Division of E nvironmental Health, Radiation Control Program

Tel: (207) 287-8401 email: Tom.Hillman@maine.gov

Related Website:

http://www.maine.gov/dhhs/mecdc/environmental-healt h/rad/

Please refer to page 144 of the 2006 Integrated Wat er Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report for further information this prog ram.
http://www.maine.gov/dep/water/monitoring/305b/2006 /2006_Final_305b_Report.pdf2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 129 

# Summary of Ground Water Quality

Figure 6-2 Distribution of Sole Source Public Wate r Supply Wells for the Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Network by Aquifer Type

Wells shown are those which were sampled.



### For 2012 the ambient ground water quality monitorin g network consists of 1191 public water supplies. Each of the selected public water supplies is provided by only one
source of water: either a drilled well in bedrock; a dug well in glacial till; a drilled well, well point, or dug well in glacial outwash sand and gravel or recent sandy alluvium (Figure 6-2). Some of the wells are large communit y water supplies; some are nontransient, non-community water supplies. Analytica l results for periodic, routine sampling of raw water were provided by the DWP. No t all the well samples were analyzed for the all the same chemical constituents every time they were obtained: frequency depends on the type of water supply and t he population served.
Nevertheless, the DEP believes that the selection r epresents ambient ground water quality in the three major geologic settings that p rovide ground water in Maine. Sand and gravel aquifers are often high yield water sour ces and are often found in developed areas, and are therefore vulnerable to co ntamination. Bedrock aquifers, though not usually hydrologically connected, underl ie the whole state and are mostly used as private water supplies, as are glacial till aquifers. The locations of the wells used to indicate ambient water quality are shown in Figure 6-3 and a summary of the2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 130 

### ambient water quality data is in Table 6-10. Figur e 6-2 shows the distribution of these wells by aquifer type.

Figure 6-3 Ambient Water Quality Monitoring Network Well Location Map2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality ReportMaine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List131Table 6-10 Ambient Aquifer Monitoring Data*Ambient Ground Water Quality Monitoring Well DataAquifer Description:TillData Reporting Period:Jan. 2009-Dec. 2010StatewideMonitoring Total number Parameter No detections ofNo detections of parameters Parameters are detected at Parameters aredata type*of wells used groups parameters above MDLs aboveMDLs or background concentrations exceeding the >10m/l detected atin assessment or background levels levels andnitrate MDL, but are less than or equal concentrationsconcentrations range from to MCLs and/ornitrate ranges from exceeding MCL'sbackground levels to <5 mg/l >5 to <10 mg/lAmbient (raw) 37 VOC164 0 1 0 0water quality SVOC111 0 0 0 0data from public # of Tests: NO32186 60 0 0 2water supply 400 Other 32 0 32 0 12wellsAmbient Ground Water Quality Monitoring Well DataAquifer Description:BedrockData Reporting Period:Jan. 2009-Dec. 2010StatewideMonitoring Total number Parameter No detections ofNo detections of parameters Parameters are detected at Parameters aredata type*of wells used groups parameters above MDLs aboveMDLs or background concentrations exceeding the >10m/l detected atin assessment or background levels levels andnitrate MDL, but are less than or equal concentrationsconcentrations range from to MCLs and/ornitrate ranges from exceeding MCL'sbackground levels to <5 mg/l >5 to <10 mg/lAmbient (raw) 1098 VOC 27210 0 114 0 1water quality SVOC 3025 0 5 0 0data from public # of Tests: NO316862 960 14 0 1 _______water supply 48174 Other 4779 0 4912 0291 _______wellsMajor uses of aquifers or hydrologic units:XPublic water supply ___ Irrigation ___ Commercial___ Mining ___ BaseflowX Private water supply ___ Thermoelectric ___ Livestock ___ Industrial ___ MaintenanceUses affected by water quality problems units:XPublic water supply___ Irrigation ___ Commercial ___ Mining ___ BaseflowX Private water supply ___ Thermoelectric ___ Livestock ___ Industrial ___ Maintenance*Data supplied by DHHS/BH/DHE/Drinking Water Program, analysis by DEP/BLWQ/DEA/Enviromental Geology Unit1VOC - Volatile Organic Compound; SVOC – Semi Volatile Organic Compound2Includes results from testing for parameters: Nitrate, Nitrate-Nitrite, and Nitrite2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality ReportMaine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List132Table 6-10 Ambient Aquifer Monitoring Data, continued*Ambient Ground Water Quality Monitoring Well DataAquifer Description: Stratified DriftData Reporting Period:Jan. 2009-Dec. 2010StatewideMonitoring Total number Parameter No detections ofNo detections of parameters Parameters are detected at Parameters aredata type*of wells used groups parameters above MDLs aboveMDLs or background concentrations exceeding the .10m/l detected atin assessment or background levels levels andnitrate MDL, but are less than or equal concentrationsconcentrations range from to MCLs and/ornitrate ranges from exceeding MCL'sbackground levels to <5 mg/l >5 to <10 mg/lAmbient (raw) 56 VOC13045 0 11 0 0water quality SVOC1411 0 5 0 0water supply # of Tests: NO3\2216 239 4 0 0wells 4978 Other 5470 492 0 8Major uses of aquifer or hydrologic unit:XPublic water supply___ Irrigation___ Commercial___Mining___ Baseflow X Private water supply ___ Thermoelectric__ Livestock ___ Industrial___ MaintenanceUses affected by water quality problems:X Public water supply___ Irrigation___ Commercial___ Mining___ Baseflow X Private water supply ___ Thermoelectric___ Livestock ___ Industrial___ Maintenance*Data supplied by DHHS/BH/DHE/Drinking Water Program, analysis by DEP/BLWQ/DEA/Enviromental Geology Unit1VOC - Volatile Organic Compound; SVOC – Semi Volatile Organic Compound2Includes results from testing for parameters: Nitrate, Nitrate-Nitrite, and Nitrite2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 133 

# Groundwater Trends

New occurrences of ground water contamination are d ocumented in Maine each year. Although discovery of existing contamination and co nsequent remediation is expected to continue, future reports of contamination are ex pected to decline as the State's ground water protection initiatives continue to be implemented, stressing contamination prevention.

Please refer to pages 149-153 of the 2006 Integrate d Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report for further information on progra ms which may indicate ground water quality trends.

http://www.maine.gov/dep/water/monitoring/305b/2006 /2006_Final_305b_Report.pdf2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 134 

# C HAPTER 

# 7 P UBLIC 

# H EALTH



# – R ELATED 

# A SSESSMENTS



# M AINE 

# H EALTHY 

# B EACHES 

# P ROGRAM

Contacts: Mark Margerum, Bureau of Land and Water Q uality (Program Manager) Tel: (207) 287-7842 email: Mark.T.Margerum@maine.gov

Keri Lindberg, University of Maine Cooperative Exte nsion and Sea Grant (Program Coordinator) Tel: (207) 832-0343 email: keri.lindberg@maine.edu

Caitlyn Whittle, EPA Region 1, BEACH Program Coordi nator Tel: (617) 918-1748 email: whittle.caitlyn@epa.gov

Related Websites: (Maine Specific) www.mainehealthybeaches.org (Federal) www.epa.gov/ost/beaches

The Maine Healthy Beaches Program (MHB) monitors oc ean beaches in order to provide protection of swimmer health. During the c urrent reporting cycle, the DEP managed the program through a partnership with the University of Maine Cooperative Extension (UMaine Extension) and Sea Grant and nume rous local beach managers and volunteers. All participating beaches, includi ng State Parks, conduct routine monitoring of beach water quality from Memorial Day through Labor Day. When exceedances occur, resampling is conducted for thos e sites. In Maine, the monitoring of town owned beaches and providing public notifica tion of beach status, is the jurisdiction of the municipality and participation in the MHB program is voluntary. Private beach owners are responsible for their own monitoring programs unless they choose to work with the local municipality and MHB. Private beaches owners may opt not to participate in any monitoring.

The U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) init iated the Beaches Environmental Assessment, Closure and Health (BEACH) Act of 2000 in response to the growing concern about public health risks posed by polluted coastal swimming beaches. MHB is a voluntary program and includes these component s: water quality assessment and public notification of beach status, education and outreach, and working with communities and program partners to identify and re mediate pollution sources through applied research and special studies.

The assessment program includes measurement of crit ical factors that affect the

health of the beach environment as well as the heal th of people who visit them (for participating beaches only).2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 135 Table 7-1 Beaches Participating in Program

Beach Name Managing Organization

Sand Beach Acadia National Park

Hadley Point Bar Harbor

Hulls Cove Bar Harbor

Town Beach Bar Harbor

Fortunes Rocks Beach Biddeford

Gil Bouche Park/Biddeford Pool Biddeford

Middle Beach (Biddeford) Biddeford

Pemaquid Beach Bristol

Laite Beach Camden

Crescent Beach Crescent Beach State Park

Kettle Cove Beach Crescent Beach State Park

Ferry Beach (Saco) Ferry Beach State Park

Winslow Park Freeport

Higgins Beach Higgins Beach Association

Hills Beach Hills Beach Association

Goochs Beach Kennebunk

Libby Cove Beach Kennebunk

Middle Beach Kennebunk

Mother’s Beach Kennebunk
Colony Beach Kennebunkport

Goose Rocks Kennebunkport

Crescent Beach (Kittery) Kittery

Fort Foster Kittery
Sea Point Beach Kittery

Ducktrap River Lincolnville

Lincolnville Beach Area Lincolnville

Footbridge (Ogunquit) Ogunquit

Little Beach Ogunquit

Main (Ogunquit) Ogunquit

Moody (Ogunquit) Ogunquit

Riverside (Ogunquit) Ogunquit

OOB - Central Old Orchard Beach

OOB - North End Old Orchard Beach

OOB - Ocean Park Old Orchard Beach

Popham - Center Beach Popham Beach State Park

Popham - East Beach Popham Beach State Park

Popham - West Beach/Morse River Popham Beach State Park

East End Beach Portland

East Beach Reid State Park

Half mile Beach Reid State Park

Lagoon Beach Reid State Park

Mile Beach Reid State Park

Sandy Beach Rockland

Goodies Beach Rockport2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 136 Beach Name Managing Organization

Bay View Saco

Kinney Shores Saco

Ferry Beach (Scarborough) Scarborough

Pine Point Scarborough

Scarborough Beach Scarborough Beach State Park

Willard Beach South Portland

Casino Square Wells

Crescent Beach (Wells) Wells

Drakes Isl. Beach Wells

Wells Beach Wells

Wells Harbor Wells

Laudholm Beach Wells National Estuarine

Research Reserve

Cape Neddick Beach York

Long Sands Beach York

Short Sands Beach York

York Harbor Beach York



# Swimming Beach Advisories and Closures

Under Clean Water Act (CWA) guidelines, the designa ted use of swimming beaches is

for “Recreation in and on the Water.” Beaches can h ave advisories or closures posted to warn of potential health risks; these actions ar e based on a risk analysis performed by the beach manager with assistance from MHB staff . The beaches listed in Tables

7-2 and 7-3 had advisories and/or closures for the number of days noted.

Beach advisories/closures are posted according to:

• Results obtained from bacteria water quality sampl es exceeding State and Federal

standards.

• Conditions at monitoring site indicating the possi ble presence of disease-causing organisms.

These advisories/closures are recommendations to th e public to avoid water contact activities at the beach until further analyses reve al safe conditions and/or conditions at monitoring site change.

For this 2012 Integrated Report, 2009 data show the re were 237 advisory days and 13 closure days. In 2010 there were 196 advisory and 11 closure days at 29 beaches.2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 137 Table 7-2 2009 Beach Advisory and Closure Informati on

Town Name Beach Name Advisory Days Closure

Days Total Days

in 2009

Bar Harbor Town Beach 10 0 10

Biddeford Fortunes Rocks Beach 4 0 4

Biddeford Hills Beach 2 0 2

Camden Laite Beach 2 0 2
Cape Elizabeth Crescent Beach 3 0 3 Georgetown Mile Beach 2 0 2

Kennebunk Goochs Beach 12 0 12 Kennebunk Libby Cove Beach 8 0 8
Kennebunk Middle Beach (Kennebunk) 8 0 8

Kennebunk Mothers Beach 6 0 6 Kennebunkport Colony Beach 7 0 7
Kennebunkport Goose Rocks 11 0 11
Kittery Fort Foster 13 0 13 Kittery Sea Point Beach 9 0 9
Lincolnville Ducktrap River 21 0 21 Ogunquit Main (Ogunquit) 2 0 2 Ogunquit Riverside (Ogunquit) 8 0 8

Old Orchard Beach Oob - Central 2 0 2 Phippsburg Popham - Center Beach 2 0 2
Phippsburg Popham - East Beach 2 0 2

Phippsburg Popham - West Beach-Morse

River 4 0 4

Portland East End Beach 11 13 24 Rockland Sandy Beach 2 0 2
Rockport Goodies Beach 23 0 23 Scarborough Higgins Beach 4 0 4 Scarborough Scarborough Beach 1 0 1

South Portland Willard Beach 23 0 23
Wells Casino Square 2 0 2
Wells Crescent Beach (Wells) 2 0 2

Wells Laudholm Beach 3 0 3

Wells Wells Beach 2 0 2

Wells Wells Harbor 2 0 2 York Cape Neddick Beach 9 0 9 York Long Sands Beach 5 0 5

York Short Sands Beach 1 0 1

York York Harbor Beach 9 0 9

Totals 237 13 2502012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 138 Table 7-3 2010 Beach Advisory and Closure Informati on

Town Name Beach Name Advisory Days Closure

Days Total

Days in

2010

Bar Harbor Hulls Cove 2 0 2

Bar Harbor Town Beach 2 0 2

Biddeford Hills Beach 2 0 2

Camden Laite Beach 10 0 10
Cape Elizabeth Kettle Cove Beach 2 0 2
Freeport Winslow Park 3 0 3 Georgetown Lagoon Beach 9 0 9

Kennebunk Goochs Beach 9 0 9 Kennebunkport Colony Beach 7 0 7
Kennebunkport Goose Rocks 18 0 18
Kittery Fort Foster 2 0 2 Kittery Sea Point Beach 4 6 10

Lincolnville Lincolnville Beach Area 8 0 8 Ogunquit Little Beach 12 0 12 Ogunquit Riverside (Ogunquit) 18 0 18

Old Orchard Beach Oob - Ocean Park 1 0 1 Phippsburg Popham - Center Beach 3 0 3
Phippsburg Popham - East Beach 3 0 3
Phippsburg Popham - West Beach-Morse River 9 0 9

Portland East End Beach 6 5 11 Rockland Sandy Beach 2 0 2
Rockport Goodies Beach 25 0 25 Scarborough Ferry Beach (Scarborough) 4 0 4

South Portland Willard Beach 11 0 11
Wells Casino Square 1 0 1
York Cape Neddick Beach 3 0 3 York Long Sands Beach 3 0 3

York Short Sands Beach 14 0 14

York York Harbor Beach 3 0 3

Totals 196 11 207



# S HELLFISH 

# P ROGRAM 

# M ONITORING 

# & A SSESSMENTS



# Shellfish Harvest Area Closures

Contact: Alison Sirois, Growing Area Program Manage r, Department of Marine
Resources, Public Health Division

Tel: (207) 215-4107 email: alison.sirois@maine.gov

Related Website:

http://www.maine.gov/dmr/rm/public_health/shellfish growingarea.htm

The Department of Marine Resources (DMR) assesses i nformation on shellfish growing areas to ensure that shellfish harvested ar e safe for consumption. A goal of the Clean Water Act (CWA) is to have these areas me et their designated use of2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 139 

### "Propagation and Harvest of Shellfish." Shellfish a reas are closed by DMR if the area

is found to have elevated levels of bacteria or if the area is determined as threatened by potential sewage pollution problems (proximity o f wastewater outfalls or intense storm runoff events). Water samples are collected a nd tested for fecal coliform bacteria at least six (6) times annually from each of the more than 2,000 established sampling sites that are located along the entire Ma ine coast. The shoreline survey includes a visual inspection of the shoreline to de termine the location and magnitude of potential sewage pollution and toxic contaminati on problems.

For information on closures, call DMR’s hot line 1- 800-232-4733 or 207-624-7727 or

visit the web at www.maine.gov/dmr/rm/public_health/closures/shellfi shhotline.htm



# Toxic Algae (Red Tide)

Contact: Darcie Couture, Biotoxin Program Manager, Department of Marine
Resources, Public Health Division

Tel: (207) 350-6035 email: darcie.couture@maine.gov

Related Website: www.maine.gov/dmr/rm/public_health/redtide.htm

"Red Tide" is used to refer to rapid increases in n umbers of microscopic marine algae that contain potentially lethal toxins. The toxin i s transferred to humans by the ingestion of shellfish that have filtered the organ isms into their systems. The toxin affects humans by paralyzing the central nervous sy stem and, in high doses, may

cause death.

DMR's Biotoxin Monitoring Program monitors levels o f PSP (Paralytic Shellfish Poisoning or "Red Tide") and other marine biotoxins in the shellfish and waters of Maine. Shellfish samples are collected statewide be tween April and October and

evaluated at the Biotoxin laboratories in West Boot hbay Harbor and Lamoine. When toxin is found approaching quarantine levels, closu res of shellfish harvest areas are implemented. Maine has historically had high levels of PSP during the warmer periods of the year. While red tide is a water quality iss ue, it is not a direct cause and effect relationship with human-caused pollutants. Closure s, therefore, are not reported as violations of water quality standards.

For information on closures, call DMR’s hot line 1- 800-232-4733 or

207-624-7727 or visit the web at

www.maine.gov/dmr/rm/public_health/closures/shellfi shhotline.htm



# O CEAN 

# F ISH AND 

# S HELLFISH 

# C ONSUMPTION 

# A DVISORIES

Contact Andrew Smith, DHHS Maine CDC, Environmental and Occupational Health Program

Tel: (207) 287-5189 email: Andy.E.Smith@maine.gov

Related Website: http://www.maine.gov/dhhs/mecdc/environmental-healt h/eohp/

Waters do not attain their "Clean Water Act-designa ted use for Fishing,” whenever government agencies issue fish and/or shellfish con sumption advisories. These advisories are designed to let citizens know that t here may be an increased risk to their health if they choose to consume certain spec ies of fish or shellfish. Since 1992, human health consumption advisories have been in pl ace to warn the public against the consumption of lobster tomalley due to high lev els of toxic contaminants. No2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 140 

### evidence of elevated levels of these contaminants w as found in lobster meat. The advisory was expanded to include bluefish and strip ed bass in 1996, also due to

detection of elevated levels of toxic contaminants in their flesh. The advisory for striped bass and blue fish was substantially revise d in June 2009 based on recent sampling data from Maine and other Atlantic coastal states. The entire Maine coast (for waters naturally capable of supporting lobster propagation and harvest) is only in partial support of its designated use for fishing d ue to these consumption

advisories. Toxic contamination found in lobster t omalley is presumed to originate in Maine waters, which leads to their listing in Categ ory 5-D for non-attainment due to legacy pollutants. Toxic contaminants found in mig ratory or pelagic finfish are presumed to have been acquired largely outside of M aine waters where the fish spend
most of their lives. Thus, advisories for marine f infish are not listed as causes of nonattainment.



# Advisory Overview

Current information, with a last revision date of J une 3, 2009, on ocean fish and shellfish advisories as adapted from the Maine CDC is as follows:



## WARNING About Eating Saltwater Fish and Lobster Tom alley

Warning: Chemicals in some Maine saltwater fish and lobster tomalley may harm people who eat them. Women who are or may become p regnant and children should carefully follow the Safe Eating Guidelines.

It's hard to believe fish that looks, smells, and t astes fine may not be safe to eat. But the truth is that some saltwater fish have mercury, PCBs and Dioxins in them.

All these chemicals settle into the ocean from the air. PCBs and Dioxins also flow into the ocean through our rivers. These chemicals then build up in fish.

Small amounts of mercury can damage a brain startin g to form or grow. That's why babies in the womb, nursing babies, and young child ren are at most risk. Mercury can
also harm older children and adults, but it takes l arger amounts.

PCBs and Dioxins can cause cancer and other health problems if too much builds up in your body. Since some saltwater fish contain se veral chemicals, we ask that all consumers of the following saltwater species follow the safe eating guidelines. 

# Specific Ocean Fish Consumption Advisories

Safe Eating Guidelines

Striped Bass and Bluefish: Pregnant and nursing women, women who may get pregnant, nursing mothers and children under 8 year s of age should not eat any striped bass or bluefish. All other individuals sh ould eat no more than 4 meals per

year.
Shark, Swordfish, King Mackerel, and Tilefish: Pregnant and nursing women, women who may get pregnant and children under 8 yea rs of age are advised to not eat any swordfish or shark. All other individuals should eat no more than 2 meals per

month.

Canned Tuna: Pregnant and nursing women, women who may get pregn ant and children under 8 years of age should eat no more th an 1 can of "white" tuna or 2 cans of "light" tuna per week.2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 141 

### All other ocean fish and shellfish, including canne d fish and shellfish: Pregnant and nursing women, women who may get pregnant and c hildren under 8 years of age should eat no more than 2 meals per week. 

# Lobster Meat and Tomalley Consumption Advisories

Lobster Meat: Consumption advisories do not exist for lobster mea t.

Lobster Tomalley: Recommended to completely avoid consumption of lobs ter tomalley. While there is no known safety considera tions when it comes to eating
lobster meat, consumers are advised to refrain from eating the tomalley. The tomalley is the soft, green substance found in the body cavi ty of the lobster that functions as the liver and pancreas. Test results have shown that t he tomalley can accumulate

contaminants found in the environment.

For more information, including warnings on freshwa ter fish call (866) 292-3474 or visit

the related web site at: http://www.maine.gov/dhhs/mecdc/environmental-healt h/eohp/



# F RESHWATER 

# F ISH 

# C ONSUMPTION 

# M ONITORING



# , A SSESSMENTS

AND 

# A DVISORIES

Contact: Barry Mower, DEP BLWQ, Division of Environ mental Assessment (DEA)

Tel: (207) 215-0291 email: Barry.F.Mower@maine.gov

Related Website: http://www.maine.gov/dep/water/monitoring/toxics/

In addition to marine fish and shellfish, DEP monit ors freshwater fish in its Surface Waters Ambient Toxics (SWAT) monitoring program for contaminants that may present a risk for human consumption. The results are forwarded to the Maine Center for Disease Control and Prevention (MCDC, formerly Maine Bureau of Health) which is responsible for recommending the warnings on eating fish based on the presence of chemicals ( MSRA 22 ß 1696 I ). MCDC does so in the form of Fish Consumption
Advisories, which can be seen with additional infor mation at http://www.maine.gov/dhhs/eohp/fish/ . There is a statewide Fish Consumption Advisory for all freshwaters because of mercury and additional advisories for specific

waters because of other contaminants.



# Mercury Statewide Fish Consumption Advisory

Based on monitoring of mercury concentrations in fr eshwater fish from all over Maine, MCDC issued a statewide advisory for all Maine lake s and ponds in 1994 and expanded it to include all freshwaters in 1997, and revised in 2000 as follows:

Pregnant and nursing women, women who may get pregn ant, and children under age 8 SHOULD NOT EAT any freshwater fish from Maine's in land waters. Except, for brook trout and landlocked salmon, 1 me al per month is safe.

All other adults and children older than 8 CAN EAT 2 freshwater fish meals per
month. For brook trout and landlocked salmon, the l imit is 1 meal per week.2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 142 

# Dioxin

Dioxin levels in fish from Maine rivers continue to decline, approaching background at some locations but still exceeding background at ot hers.

An evaluation of the need for fish consumption advi sories due to the presence of dioxin-like compounds in fish requires a comparison to a health benchmark. The MCDC uses a health benchmark that is expressed as a toxicity-weighted concentration of dioxin-like compounds in fish tissue, referred t o as a “Fish Tissue Action Level” or FTAL. For the present report, the MCDC compares the most recent data on

contaminant levels to its current FTALc for dioxin- like compounds of 1.5 parts per trillion (ppt) for protection of cancer-related eff ects and a 0.4 parts per trillion FTALr for protection of noncancer reproductive related effect s. The FTAL of 1.5 ppt for cancer related effects has been used by MCDC since 1990. T he FTAL of 0.4 ppt for noncancer effects is based on the same toxicity dat a relied upon since 1990, but has been adjusted downward to account for the substanti al background exposure we all get from the presence of these chemicals in most di etary foods.

There was no dioxin sampling in 2009 but there was limited sampling in 2010. In 2010, dioxin concentrations measured in fish from t he West Branch of the Sebasticook
River were lower than when last measured, but still exceed MCDC’s non-cancer reproductive Fish Tissue Action Level (FTALr). The dioxin concentrations in fish from

the St. Croix River above Woodland are below the FT ALr; dioxin-like coplanar PCBs were not measured in 2010, but in previous years th e addition of the PCBs resulted in an exceedance of the FTALr. Fish captured from the Androscoggin River, Penobscot River below Millinocket, Presumpscot River in Gorha m and Westbrook, and Sebasticook River at Newport and Burnham exceeded M CDC’s FTALr for dioxins in previous years.



# River and Stream Specific Fish Consumption Advisori es

The dominant causes for the following fish consumpt ion advisories are identified as dioxin/furans/coplanar PCBs, total PCBs, and total DDTs (DDD + DDE + DDT). MCDC is currently reviewing all the fish contaminan t data since 2003 and expects any revisions to the fish consumption advisories to be issued in 2012.

Current advisories are listed below.2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 143 

### Department of Health and Human Services Guidelines about Eating Freshwater Fish

Warning: Mercury in Maine freshwater fish may harm the babi es of pregnant and nursing mothers, and young children.

SAFE EATING GUIDELINES

Pregnant and nursing women, women who may get pregn ant, and children under age 8 SHOULD NOT EAT any freshwater fish from Maine's inl and waters. Except, for brook trout and landlocked salmon, 1 meal per month is safe.

All other adults and children older than 8 CAN EAT 2 freshwater fish meals per month. For
brook trout and landlocked salmon, the limit is 1 m eal per week. It's hard to believe that fish that looks, smells, and tastes fine may not be safe to eat. But the tru th is that fish in Maine lakes, ponds, and rivers have mercury in them. Other states have this problem too. Mercury in the air settles into the wa ters. It then builds up in fish. For this reason, older fish have higher levels of mercury than young er fish. Fish (like pickerel and bass) that eat other fish have the highest mercury levels.

Small amounts of mercury can harm a brain starting to form or grow. That is why unborn and nursing babies and young children are most at risk. Too much mercury can affect behavior and learning. Mercury can harm older children and adult s, but it takes larger amounts. It may cause numbness in hands and feet or changes in vision. Th e Safe Eating Guidelines identify limits to
protect everyone.

Warning: Some Maine waters are polluted, requiring additional limits to eating fish.

Fish caught in some Maine waters have high levels o f PCBs, Dioxins or DDT in them. These

chemicals can cause cancer and other health effects . The Bureau of Health recommends additional fish consumption limits on the waters li sted below. Remember to check the mercury guidelines. If the water you are fishing is listed below, check the mercury guideline above and follow the most limiting guidelines.

Androscoggin River Gilead to Merrymeeting Bay:----- ---------------------- 6-12 fish meals a year. Dennys River Meddybemps Lake to Dead Stream:------- ----------------- 1-2 fish meals a month. Green Pond, Chapman Pit, & Greenlaw Brook (Limestone):---------------------------------------

---------------- Do not eat any fish from these waters

. Little Madawaska River & tributaries (Madawaska Dam to Grimes Mill Road):---------------

-- Do not eat any fish from these waters

. Kennebec River Augusta to the Chops:---------------

- Do not eat any fish from these waters

. Shawmut Dam in Fairfield to Augusta:--------- 5 tro ut meals a year, 1-2 bass meals a month.

Madison to Fairfield: ----------------------------- -------------------------------------- 1-2 fish mea ls a month. Meduxnekeag River: -------------------------------- -------------------------------------- 2 fish meals a month. North Branch Presque Isle River-------------------- ----------------------------------- 2 fish meals a month.

Penobscot River below Lincoln:--------------------- --------------------------------- 1-2 fish meals a month

Prestile Stream:----------------------------------- -------------------------------------------- 1 fish meal a month. Red Brook in Scarborough: ------------------------- -------------------------------------- 6 fish meals a year. Salmon Falls River below Berwick: ----------------- ------------------------------- 6-12 fish meals a y ear. Sebasticook River (East Branch, West Branch & Main Stem) (Corinna/Hartland to Winslow):--------------------- -------------------------------------2 fish meals a month.2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 144 

# G ROUNDWATER AND 

# P UBLIC 

# H EALTH 

# C ONCERNS



# Public Health and Environmental Concerns

Contaminants found in groundwater have numerous adv erse human health and environmental impacts. Public health concerns arise because some of the contaminants are individually linked to toxic effec ts ranging from allergic reactions and respiratory impairment to liver and kidney damage, and damage to the central nervous system. Additional public health concerns also aris e because information is not available about the health impacts of many contamin ants found in groundwater.

Due to uncertainties in the relationships between e xposure to contaminants and impacts on human health, public health efforts are based on identifying the probabilities of impacts (i.e. risk assessment). Co nducting a risk assessment for combinations of contaminants that are commonly foun d in groundwater is difficult because there are no generally accepted protocols f or testing the effects of contaminant interactions. The primary route of expo sure to contaminants is through ingestion of drinking water, although exposure is a lso possible through contact with skin and inhalation of vapors from groundwater sour ces (bathing, food preparation, industrial processes, etc.)

Because groundwater generally provides base flow to streams and rivers, environmental impacts include toxic effects on bent hic invertebrates, fish, wildlife and aquatic vegetation. This also presents a public hea lth concern if the surface waterbody

is a source of food or recreation. In some areas of the State there are probably links between low-level, long-term groundwater quality de gradation and the water quality of streams and brooks during low-flow conditions.



# Drinking Water Programs and Groundwater Contaminant

Assessments

W ELLHEAD 

# P ROTECTION 

# P ROGRAM

Contact: David Braley, DHHS Maine CDC, Division of Environmental Health, Drinking Water Program

Tel: (207) 287-5338 email: David.Braley@maine.gov

Related Websites:

http://www.maine.gov/dhhs/mecdc/environmental-healt h/water/financialresources/financialresources.htm

or http://www.state.me.us/dhhs/eng/water/

The State of Maine Drinking Water Program (DWP), lo cated in the Department of Health and Human Services, administers the Wellhead Protection Program (WHPP). The WHPP continues to be a voluntary program for Ma ine's public water suppliers, with all reduced or waived monitoring tied to appro ved protection programs. To be eligible for reduced or waived monitoring, a system must have an approved local Wellhead Protection Plan (WHPP) and have completed a waiver application.2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 145 

# S OURCE 

# W ATER 

# A SSESSMENT AND 

# P ROTECTION 

# P ROGRAM

Contact: Andrews L. Tolman, DHHS Maine CDC, Divisio n of Environmental Health, Drinking Water Program

Tel: (207) 287-2070 email: andrews.l.tolman@maine.gov

Related Websites: www.medwp.com and

http://www.maine.gov/dhhs/mecdc/environmental-healt h/water/dwpservices/swp/sourcewaterprotection.htm

Water supply protection is the first line of defens e in protecting public health. Protecting a water supply source has long been reco gnized as the cornerstone of providing safe drinking water. The most effective s ource protection method is to keep the area contributing water to the supply open and undeveloped. The Maine Drinking Water Program’s (DWP) completed five year assessmen t of source protection for public water supplies identified rapid residential and commercial development in source protection areas as the most significant thr eat to water quality and quantity, and few water suppliers are prepared to deal with t hese risks.

Public Water Systems have a very limited suite of t ools for source protection: they can purchase land, inspect existing activities, and ask local government to enact (and enforce) protective ordinances. Less than half of M aine’s community water systems have effective source protection plans in place aft er more than fifteen years of encouragement and incentives. The Program continues to work to assess the risk to new sources and systems, and to encourage protectio n.



# F INISHED 

# W ATERS

Contact: Andy Tolman, DHHS Maine CDC, Division of E nvironmental Health, Drinking Water Program

Tel: (207) 287-6191 email: andrews.l.tolman@maine.gov

Related Website: www.medwp.com

The Drinking Water Program (DWP) is the front line enforcement agent of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) for the rules and regulations set forth in the Safe Drinking Water Act (SDWA). The requirements of SDWA apply to the approximately 1900 public drinking water systems in Maine. There are 70 water systems that use surface water as their primary sou rce and these all have water treatment systems and watershed protection programs . Of the approximately 1,800 ground water systems, 876 have some form of treatme nt on-line (and this number is likely to continue to rise) while the remaining sys tems have no treatment and serve raw water. Water testing on finished water is the p rimary means for assessing public water system compliance while verifying the quality of water that is reaching

consumers.2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 146 

# P RIVATE 

# W ELLS

Contact Andrew Smith, DHHS Maine CDC, Environmental and Occupational Health Program

Tel: (207) 287-5189 email: andy.e.smith@maine.gov

Related Website: http://www.maine.gov/dhhs/mecdc/environmental-healt h/eohp/wells/

The State of Maine has one of the highest per capit a uses of domestic household wells for drinking water in the U.S. Based on data from M aine’s 2003 Behavioral Risk Factors Surveillance Survey (BRFSS), 52 percent of the state’s population relies on private domestic wells for their drinking water. D espite the fact that the majority of Maine residents obtain their drinking water from pr ivate household wells, the State does not have an environmental health services prog ram focused specifically on meeting the needs of private well owners.

Please refer to pages 162-167 of the 2006 Integrate d Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report for additional information on Mai ne’s Wellhead Protection and Source Water Protection Programs, and Finished Wate r and Private Well information. http://www.maine.gov/dep/water/monitoring/305b/inde x.htm



# R ADON

Contact: Bob Stilwell, DHHS Maine CDC, Division of Environmental Health, Radiation Control Program

Tel: (207) 287-5698 (or 800-232-0842 in Maine) em ail: bob.stilwell@maine.gov

Related Website: http://www.maine.gov/dhhs/mecdc/environmental-healt h/rad/radon/hp-radon.htm

Not all public health concerns that involve ground water are caused by pollution released from human activities. The presence of na turally occurring radioactive radon gas in ground water drawn from granite bedrock aqui fers and overlying soils has long been recognized as a problem in Maine. Based on st udies of miners and more recently on people living in homes with high radon concentrations, medical researchers have shown that high radon levels in ai r are associated with increased incidence of lung cancer. Radon in water supplies is a concern because radon is readily released into the air from water. Therefor e the health concerns stems more from inhalation of the radon rather than drinking t he water. A large number of Maine wells have radon concentrations that through normal household water use, release

concentrations of radon into the air that are as hi gh or higher than the concentrations associated with an increased incidence of lung canc er.
The average concentration of radon in public or pri vate water supplies in Maine ranges from 5,000 to 10,000 picocuries/Liter (pCi/L). The Maine State Toxicologist set a maximum exposure guideline (MEG) for radon in water of 4,000 pCi/l, effective January 1 2007. For private wells with radon in wa ter concentrations between 4,000 pCi/l and 10,000 pCi/l, the Toxicologist recommends investigation of the total radon risk in the structure from water and soil gas (air) , then making a decision to reduce radon based on the amount of risk the occupants are willing to accept and the

resources available for radon risk reduction. For private wells with radon concentrations of 10,000 pCi/l or higher in water, the guidance recommends reducing the radon in water concentration regardless of the radon in air concentration. The new2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 147 

### radon in water MEG is also being used by the Drinki ng Water Program when evaluating new community water supplies and new non -transient, non-community water supplies.



# A RSENIC

Contacts: Robert Marvinney, State Geologist, Maine Geological Survey

Tel: (207) 287-2804 email: robert.g.marvinney@maine.gov

or David Braley, DHHS, Maine CDC, Division of Envir onmental Health, Drinking Water Program

Tel: (207) 287-5338 email: David.Braley@maine.gov

Related Websites:

http://www.maine.gov/dhhs/mecdc/environmental-healt h/water/resources/arsenic.htm

and http://www.maine.gov/dhhs/mecdc/environmental-healt h/eohp/index.htm

Several types of cancer including skin and bladder cancer, along with other health problems have been linked to the occurrence of arse nic in drinking water. The current Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL) for arsenic is 10 p pb (parts per billion) in drinking water. A 2010 study by the U.S. Geological Survey, in cooperation with the Maine Center for Disease Control, reviewed nearly 14,000 well water analyses statewide, and determined that more than 25 percent of the wells s ampled in 44 towns had arsenic concentrations in excess of 10 ppb. However, becau se these wells were self-selected by the homeowners for analysis, it is likely that t he data are biased toward higher arsenic concentrations. It is likely that 10-15 pe rcent of wells statewide have arsenic

concentrations in excess of the MCL. Additional wo rk by the Maine Geological Survey, Columbia University, and the U.S. Geological Survey on potential sources of arsenic in well water in central Maine strongly suggests that the local metamorphic bedrock is a significant source. However, potential anthropogen ic sources cannot be ruled out in

some areas.2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality ReportMaine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List148CHAPTER8SUMMARY OFIMPAIREDWATERSOVERVIEWChapter 8 was re-organized from the 2010 IntegratedReport layout to facilitate readability. There are now four sets of tables andeach table is presented for each waterbody type assessed by Maine (rivers/streams, lakes/ponds, wetlands, and estuarine/marinewaters). The four sets are: 1) New Listings (Tables 8-1 to 8-4); 2) New Delistings (8-5 to 8-8); 3) Status of Delisted Category 5Waters (8-9 to 8-12); and 4) TMDL Current Project Update (8-13 to 8-16). For each item listed below,also see the related recordin Appendices II-V as additional information may bepresented there.NEWLISTINGSTable 8-1 New Rivers/Streams ListingsThis table provides a list of new impairments (Category 5 listings) as well new assessment units (AUs)that were added in other, nonimpaired categories; the term ‘listings’ is therefore used in a general sense here. Note that severalAU/cause combinations werelisted as impaired (Category 5-A) for the first time in the 2012 reporting cycle but subsequently delisted to Category 4-A in the samecycle due to TMDL approval. See the ‘Comments’ column for more information. A ‘0’ in column ‘Category, 2010’ indicates that theassessment unit was not listed in that year for that cause. Abbreviations used in column ‘Category, Other 2012’ in Table 8-1 are asfollows: A/P, (Algae) Periphyton (Aufwuchs) Indicator Bioassessments; DO, Dissolved Oxygen; HA, Habitat Assessment (Streams);MI, Benthic-Macroinvertebrate Bioassessments (Streams); N/E, Nutrient/Eutrophication Biological Indicators; TN, Total Nitrogen; TP,Total Phosphorus; S/S, Sedimentation/Siltation.ADB Assessment Unit IDSegment NameLocationCauseCategoryComments20102012Other2012ME0101000303_123R01North Fork McLeanBrookSt Agatha, tributaryto Fish RiverBenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Streams)0 35-A(A/P)New listing for potential AquaticLife Use impairment based on2009 biological monitoring data.ME0101000303_123R01North Fork McLeanBrookSt Agatha, tributaryto Fish RiverPeriphyton (Aufwuchs)IndicatorBioassessments0 3 5-A (MI)2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality ReportMaine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List149ADB Assessment Unit IDSegment NameLocationCauseCategoryComments20102012Other2012ME0101000303_124R01 Dickey BrookTributary to CrossLake/Fish RiverPeriphyton (Aufwuchs)IndicatorBioassessments0 4-A4-A(DO,N/E)New listing for Aquatic Life Useimpairment based on 2003 and2009 biological monitoring data.Impairment covered under EPAapproved TMDL for Cross Lakeand Daigle Pond.ME0101000304_128R01Perley Brook (FortKent)Includes SouthPerley Bk andNorth Br Perley Bk;trib to Fish RPeriphyton (Aufwuchs)IndicatorBioassessments0 3 noneNew listing for potential AquaticLife Use impairment based on2004 and 2009 biologicalmonitoring data.ME0101000411_137R01Salmon Brook(Washburn)Tributary toAroostook RiverPeriphyton (Aufwuchs)IndicatorBioassessments0 3 noneNew listing for Aquatic Life Usebased on 2009 biologicalmonitoring data.ME0101000412_140R02Dudley Brook(Chapman)Tributary to NorthBranch PresqueIsle StreamPeriphyton (Aufwuchs)IndicatorBioassessments0 34-A (MI,TN, TP,S/S)New listing for potential AquaticLife Use impairment based on2009 biological monitoring data.ME0101000412_140R04Hanson Brook-"Unnamed Stream(P.I. airport)" BioSta743Tributary toPresque IsleStream, drainingthe airportPeriphyton (Aufwuchs)IndicatorBioassessments0 5-A 5-A (MI)New listing for Aquatic Life Useimpairment based on 2004 and2009 biological monitoring data.ME0101000412_140R05Kennedy Brook(Presque Isle)Tributary toPresque IsleStreamPeriphyton (Aufwuchs)IndicatorBioassessments0 5-A noneNew listing for Aquatic Life Useimpairment based on 2004 and2009 biological monitoring data.ME0101000412_143R01Everett Brook (Ft.Fairfield)Tributary toAroostook RiverPeriphyton (Aufwuchs)IndicatorBioassessments0 35-A(DO)New listing for potential AquaticLife Use impairment based on2009 biological monitoring data.ME0101000412_143R02 Merrit Brookentering AroostookR. from south,downstream ofPresque IsleBenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Streams)3 5-A5-A(A/P)New listing for Aquatic Life Useimpairment based on 2004 and2009 biological monitoring data.ME0101000412_143R02 Merrit Brookentering AroostookR. from south,downstream ofPresque IslePeriphyton (Aufwuchs)IndicatorBioassessments0 5-A 5-A (MI)ME0101000413_146R02 Coloney BrookFort Fairfield,tributary toLimestone StreamBenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Streams)0 5-A5-A(A/P)New listing for Aquatic Life Useimpairment based on 2004 and2009 biological monitoring data.2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality ReportMaine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List150ADB Assessment Unit IDSegment NameLocationCauseCategoryComments20102012Other2012ME0101000413_146R02 Coloney BrookFort Fairfield,tributary toLimestone StreamPeriphyton (Aufwuchs)IndicatorBioassessments0 5-A 5-A (MI)ME0101000413_148R Aroostook RiverMain stem betweenconfluence withPresque Isle Streamand 3 milesupstream of Caribouwater supply intakeN/A 2 3 noneNew listing for potential AquaticLife Use impairment basedobservational data.ME0101000413_148R01Aroostook River(Caribou)Main stem between3 miles upstream ofCaribou water supplyintake and 100 yardsdownstream ofintakeN/A 0 2 noneNew Assessment Unit, createdduring Aroostook Riverresegmentation in accordancewith water classification (38MRSA Section 465).ME0101000413_148R02 Aroostook RiverMain stem between100 yardsdownstream ofCaribou watersupply intake andinternationalboundaryN/A 0 2 noneNew Assessment Unit, createdduring Aroostook Riverresegmentation in accordancewith water classification (38MRSA Section 465).ME0101000501_149R01Prestile Streamabove dam in MarsHillincluding L.ChristinaPeriphyton (Aufwuchs)IndicatorBioassessments0 4-A4-A (MI,DO,N/E)5-D(DDT)New listing for Aquatic Life Useimpairment based on 2003, 2004and 2009 biological monitoringdata. Impairment covered underEPA approved TMDL for this AU.ME0101000501_150RPrestile Str andtributaries enteringbelow dam in MarsHillBenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Streams)0 33 (A/P)5-D(DDT)New listing for potential AquaticLife Use impairment based on2009 biological monitoring data.ME0101000501_150RPrestile Str andtributaries enteringbelow dam in MarsHillPeriphyton (Aufwuchs)IndicatorBioassessments0 33 (MI)5-D(DDT)2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality ReportMaine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List151ADB Assessment Unit IDSegment NameLocationCauseCategoryComments20102012Other2012ME0101000501_150R02 Rocky BrookMars Hill, tributaryto Prestile StreamPeriphyton (Aufwuchs)IndicatorBioassessments0 3 noneNew listing for potential AquaticLife Use impairment based on2004 and 2009 biologicalmonitoring data.ME0102000510_224R04Birch Stream(Bangor)Tributary toKenduskeagStreamPeriphyton (Aufwuchs)IndicatorBioassessments0 4-A 4-A (MI)New listing for Aquatic Life Useimpairment based on 2001, 2003and 2006 biological monitoringdata. Impairment covered underEPA approved TMDL (9/12/2007)for this AU.ME0102000510_224R07Crooked Brook,CorinthTributary toKenduskeagStreamPeriphyton (Aufwuchs)IndicatorBioassessments0 5-A noneNew listing for Aquatic Life Useimpairment based on 2001, 2006and 2011 biological monitoringdata.ME0102000511_225R01_02Shaw Brook(Bangor, Hampden)Tributary toPenobscot RiverPeriphyton (Aufwuchs)IndicatorBioassessments0 4-A4-A (MI,HA)New listing for Aquatic Life Useimpairment based on 2001, 2006and 2011 biological monitoringdata. Subsequently delisted to 4-A in this cycle due to TMDLapproval (see Table 8-5).ME0103000307_330RW Branch ofSebasticook RMain stem, belowRt. 23 bridge inHartlandPolychlorinatedbiphenyls5-A 5-D5-A(dioxin)No current sources ofcontamination, remaining PCBsare legacy pollutants - AU movedfrom Category 5-A to 5-D in 2012cycle for this cause.ME0103000312_333R03Kennedy Brook(Augusta)Tributary toKennebec RiverPeriphyton (Aufwuchs)IndicatorBioassessments0 5-A 4-A (MI)New listing for Aquatic Life Useimpairment based on 2002 and2007 biological monitoring data.Subsequently delisted to 4-A inthis cycle due to TMDL approval(see Table 8-5).ME0103000312_333R04Unnamed tributary toBond BrookAugustaPeriphyton (Aufwuchs)IndicatorBioassessments0 4-A4-A (MI,HA)New listing for Aquatic Life Useimpairment based on 2002 and2007 biological monitoring data.Subsequently delisted to 4-A inthis cycle due to TMDL approval(see Table 8-5).2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality ReportMaine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List152ADB Assessment Unit IDSegment NameLocationCauseCategoryComments20102012Other2012ME0104000210_418R03Sabattus Riverbetween Sabattusand Androscoggin RSabattus Riverfrom limits ofLisbon urban areato Androscoggin RBenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Streams)0 5-A5-A(DO,N/E)Newly created AU (split out fromME0104000210_418R01),existing impairments carried overfrom original AU.ME0104000210_418R03Sabattus Riverbetween Sabattusand Androscoggin RSabattus Riverfrom limits ofLisbon urban areato Androscoggin RNutrient/EutrophicationBiological Indicators0 5-A5-A (MI,DO)ME0104000210_418R03Sabattus Riverbetween Sabattusand Androscoggin RSabattus Riverfrom limits ofLisbon urban areato Androscoggin ROxygen, Dissolved 0 5-A5-A (MI,N/E)ME0104000210_419R02Hart Brook(Lewiston) A.K.A DillBrook and includingGoff BkTributary toAndroscogginRiverPeriphyton (Aufwuchs)IndicatorBioassessments0 5-A4-A (MI,HA, DO)New 5-A listing for Aquatic LifeUse: biomonitoring station S-663showed algae (periphyton) nonattainment in 2003 and 2004 andClass C in 2008. Subsequentlydelisted to 4-A in this cycle due toTMDL approval (see Table 8-5).ME0104000210_420R04Unnamed tributary(Topsham 2) toAndroscoggin RBio Sta 633(TopshamDwnstrm of Rt. 24crossing)43.92470/69.95027BenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Streams)0 5-A4-A(HA)New listing for Aquatic Life Useimpairment based on 2002 and2008 biological monitoring data.Subsequently delisted to 4-A inthis cycle due to TMDL approval(see Table 8-5).ME0105000305_528R02West BranchSheepscot RiverBelow HallsCorner, Rt 17/32Periphyton (Aufwuchs)IndicatorBioassessments0 5-A2 (DO)3 (MI)5-A (E.coli)New listing for Aquatic Life Useimpairment based on 2002-2003and 2005-2011 biologicalmonitoring data.ME0106000103_607R04Piscataqua River(Falmouth)]Tributary toPresumpscot RiverPeriphyton (Aufwuchs)IndicatorBioassessments0 3 noneNew listing for potential AquaticLife Use impairment based on2005 and 2010 biologicalmonitoring data.ME0106000103_607R13Tannery Brook(Gorham)Tributary to LittleRiver in GorhamBenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Streams)0 3 noneNew listing for potential AquaticLife Use impairment based on2010 biological monitoring data.(2010 Category 3 listing of this AU2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality ReportMaine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List153ADB Assessment Unit IDSegment NameLocationCauseCategoryComments20102012Other2012ME0106000103_607R13Tannery Brook(Gorham)Tributary to LittleRiver in GorhamPeriphyton (Aufwuchs)IndicatorBioassessments0 3 nonedid not specify cause.)ME0106000104_611R02Phillips Brook(Scarborough)Oxygen, Dissolved 0 5-A4-A(HA)New listing for Aquatic Life Useimpairment based on 2008 data.Subsequently delisted to 4-A inthis cycle due to TMDL approval(see Table 8-5).ME0106000105_607R11_01Nasons Brook(Portland), trib toFore RiverOxygen, Dissolved 0 5-A4-A (MI,A/P)New listing for Aquatic Life Useimpairment based on 2008 data.Subsequently delisted to 4-A inthis cycle due to TMDL approval(see Table 8-5).ME0106000105_607R11_01Nasons Brook(Portland), trib toFore RiverPeriphyton (Aufwuchs)IndicatorBioassessments0 5-A4-A (MI,DO)New listing for Aquatic Life Useimpairment based on 2003 and2004 data. Subsequently delistedto 4-A in this cycle due to TMDLapproval (see Table 8-5).ME0106000105_607R11_02Nasons Brook(Westbrook), trib toFore RiverOxygen, Dissolved 0 5-A4-A (MI,A/P)New listing for Aquatic Life Useimpairment based on 2008 data.Subsequently delisted to 4-A inthis cycle due to TMDL approval(see Table 8-5).ME0106000105_607R11_02Nasons Brook(Westbrook), trib toFore RiverPeriphyton (Aufwuchs)IndicatorBioassessments0 5-A4-A (MI,DO)New listing for Aquatic Life Useimpairment based on 2003 and2004 data. Subsequently delistedto 4-A in this cycle due to TMDLapproval (see Table 8-5).ME0106000105_610R01 Capisic Brook PortlandPeriphyton (Aufwuchs)IndicatorBioassessments0 5-A4-A (MI,HA)New listing for Aquatic Life Useimpairment based on 2003 and2004 biological monitoring data.Subsequently delisted to 4-A inthis cycle due to TMDL approval(see Table 8-5).2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality ReportMaine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List154ADB Assessment Unit IDSegment NameLocationCauseCategoryComments20102012Other2012ME0106000105_610R07Red Brook(Scarborough, SPortland)Tributary to LongCreekPolychlorinatedbiphenyls5-A 5-D4-A(HA)No current sources ofcontamination, remaining PCBsare legacy pollutants - AU movedfrom Category 5-A to 5-D in 2012cycle for this cause.ME0106000105_610R10Stroudwater River(Gorham)Below SouthBranchStroudwater RiverPeriphyton (Aufwuchs)IndicatorBioassessments0 3 noneNew listing for potential AquaticLife Use impairment based on2005 and 2010 biologicalmonitoring data.ME0106000106_602R02Mare Brook(Brunswick) andselected tributariesAU includestributariesdownstream ofairport runwayBenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Streams)0 5-A4-A(HA)New listing for Aquatic Life Useimpairment based on biologicalmonitoring data from multipleyears at multiple sites.Subsequently delisted to 4-A inthis cycle due to TMDL approval(see Table 8-5).ME0106000106_602R03Concord Gully(Freeport)Tributary toHarraseeket RiverPeriphyton (Aufwuchs)IndicatorBioassessments0 5-A4-A (MI,DO, HA)5-A (E.coli)New listing for Aquatic Life Useimpairment based on 2001 and2010 biological monitoring data.Subsequently delisted to 4-A inthis cycle due to TMDL approval(see Table 8-5).ME0106000106_612R01Goosefare Brookabove I-95Goosefare Brook,SacoEscherichia coli 0 5-B noneNew listing for Primary/SecondaryContact Recreation based on2011 bacteria monitoring. Will beincluded in future update tostatewide bacteria TMDL(approved 9/28/09).ME0106000106_612R01_01Goosefare Brookbelow I-95Saco, Old OrchardBeachBenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Streams)0 5-A4-A(metals)5-A (E.coli)New listing for Aquatic Life Usebased on biological monitoringdata. Subsequently delisted to 4-Ain this cycle due to TMDLapproval (see Table 8-5).2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality ReportMaine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List155ADB Assessment Unit IDSegment NameLocationCauseCategoryComments20102012Other2012ME0106000106_612R01_01Goosefare Brookbelow I-95Saco, Old OrchardBeachEscherichia coli 0 5-A4-A(metals)5-A (MI)New listing for Primary/SecondaryContact Recreation based on2011 bacteria monitoring. Will beincluded in future update tostatewide bacteria TMDL(approved 9/28/09).ME0106000211_616R07Swan Pond BrookTrib, BiddefordDayton andBiddefordPeriphyton (Aufwuchs)IndicatorBioassessments0 3 noneNew listing for potential AquaticLife Use impairment based on2005 and 2010 biologicalmonitoring data.ME0106000301_622R03Duck Brook andtributariesArundel Escherichia coli 0 5-B noneNew listing for Primary/SecondaryContact Recreation based on2011 bacteria monitoring. Will beincluded in future update tostatewide bacteria TMDL(approved 9/28/09).ME0106000301_622R04Kennebunk River(Arundel/Kennebunk)Ward Brook toKennebunkLandingPeriphyton (Aufwuchs)IndicatorBioassessments0 3 noneNew listing for potential AquaticLife Use impairment based on2004 and 2010 biologicalmonitoring data.ME0106000304_625R04 Goodall BrookUpstream ofDaylight AveBenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Streams)3 4-A noneNew listing for Aquatic Life Useimpairments based on 2004biological monitoring data.Subsequently delisted to 4-A inthis cycle due to TMDL approval(see Table 8-5).ME0106000304_625R04 Goodall BrookUpstream ofDaylight AveHabitat Assessment(Streams)0 4-A none2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality ReportMaine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List156Table 8-2 New Lakes/Ponds ListingsHUCLake NameLake IDImpaired UseCategoryOther ListingCategorieshaving Lakeswithin this HUCComments20102012ME 103000311 COCHNEWAGON P 3814Aquatic Life; PrimaryContact; trophictrend/internal recycling3 5-A 2, 4aNew listing for Aquatic Life and PrimaryContact Use impairments based on 2010and 2011 monitoring data. Cochnewagonwas treated with alum to control internalcycling of phosphorus nearly 30 years agothe effectiveness of which has worn off.Table 8-3 New Wetlands ListingsThis table provides a list of new impairments (Category 5 listings) as well new assessment units (AUs)that were added in other, nonimpaired categories; the term ‘listings’ is therefore used in a general sense here. Note that one AU/cause combination (Dole Brook)was listed as impaired (Category 5-A) for the firsttime in the 2012 reporting cycle but subsequentlydelisted to Category 4-A in thesame cycle due to TMDL approval. See the ‘Comments’ column for more information. A ‘0’ in column ‘Category, 2010’ indicates thatthe assessment unit was not listed in that year forthat cause. Abbreviations used in column ‘Category, Other 2012’ in Table 8-3 areas follows: MI, Benthic-Macroinvertebrate Bioassessments (Streams); PCBs, Polychlorinated biphenyls.ADB Assessment UnitIDSegmentNameLocationCauseCategoryComments20102012Other2012ME0106000105_609R01_W026Dole BrookTributary to PresumpscotR, entering east of Rt. 302in Portland, wetlandstations W-025 and W026Benthic -MacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Wetlands)3 5-A noneNew listing for Aquatic Life Useimpairment based on 2000 and 2010biological monitoring data.Subsequently delisted to 4-A in thiscycle due to TMDL approval(see Table 8-7).2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality ReportMaine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List157ADB Assessment UnitIDSegmentNameLocationCauseCategoryComments20102012Other2012ME0101000501_149R_W200Tributarywetlands toPrestile Streamabove dam inMars Hillincludes site W-200Benthic -MacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Wetlands)0 3 noneNew listing for potential Aquatic LifeUse impairment based on 2009biological monitoring data.ME0101000501_149R01_W203Prestile Streamwetlandsabove dam inMars HillOutlet of ChristinaReservoir to dam in MarsHill, including sites W-203and W-204Benthic -MacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Wetlands)0 35-D(DDT)New listing for potential Aquatic LifeUse impairment based on 2009biological monitoring data.ME0101000501_149R01_W203Prestile Streamwetlandsabove dam inMars HillOutlet of ChristinaReservoir to dam in MarsHill, including sites W-203and W-204DDT 0 5-D 3 (MI)New listing for fish consumption useimpairment based on fish tissuemonitoring data. This listing and itscategory was inferred from therelated river AU.ME0102000205_2036_W226Widden Pond#2Baxter State Park N/A 0 2 noneNew attainment listing for Aquatic LifeUse based on 2010 biologicalmonitoring data.ME0103000308_325R01_W080East BranchSebasticookRiver WetlandBetween Corundel Pondand Sebasticook Lake,wetland site W-080Benzene 0 4-B4-B (MI)5-D(dioxin,PCBs)New listings for fish consumption useimpairment based on fish tissuemonitoring data. These listings andtheir categories were inferred fromthe related river AU.ME0103000308_325R01_W080East BranchSebasticookRiver WetlandBetween Corundel Pondand Sebasticook Lake,wetland site W-080Dioxin (including2,3,7,8-TCDD)0 5-D4-B (MI,benzene)ME0103000308_325R01_W080East BranchSebasticookRiver WetlandBetween Corundel Pondand Sebasticook Lake,wetland site W-080Polychlorinatedbiphenyls0 5-D4-B (MI,benzene)ME0104000209_415R_W178Bog Brook(Minot)N/A 0 2 noneNew attainment listing for Aquatic LifeUse based on 2008 biologicalmonitoring data.ME0106000101_606R_W013NorthwestRiverWetland complex tributaryto Sebago Lake; includeswetland stations W-013and W-131N/A 0 2 noneNew attainment listing for Aquatic LifeUse based on 2001 and 2005biological monitoring data.ME0106000102_603R_W002UnnamedTributary toRoyal RiverWetland nearTufts/Weymouth Rd NewGloucester, wetlandstation W-002N/A 0 2 noneNew attainment listing for Aquatic LifeUse based on 2010 biologicalmonitoring data.2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality ReportMaine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List158ADB Assessment UnitIDSegmentNameLocationCauseCategoryComments20102012Other2012ME0106000103_607R_W033MorganMeadowAbove dam, includeswetland stations W-033and W-225N/A 0 2 noneNew attainment listing for Aquatic LifeUse based on 2000, 2001 and 2010biological monitoring data.ME0106000210_615R_W041LakeArrowheadN/A 0 2 noneNew attainment listing for Aquatic LifeUse based on 2010 biologicalmonitoring data.ME0106000301_3984_W217Alewife Pond N/A 0 2 noneNew attainment listing for Aquatic LifeUse based on 2010 biologicalmonitoring data.ME0106000302_623R_W211CarpenterBrookN/A 0 2 noneNew attainment listing for Aquatic LifeUse based on 2009 biologicalmonitoring data.ME0106000302_628R01_02_W054UnnamedTributary toMousam RiverWetland Station W-054Benthic -MacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Wetlands)3 5-A noneNew listing for Aquatic Life Useimpairment based on 2001 and 2010biological monitoring data.ME0106000302_628R01_W053Number OnePond wetlands(Sanford)Wetland station W-053Benthic -MacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Wetlands)0 3 noneNew listing for potential Aquatic LifeUse impairment based on 2001 and2010 biological monitoring data.Table 8-4 New Estuarine/Marine Waters ListingsWaterbodyIDSegment DescriptionCauseCategoryComments20102012Other2012812-2Piscataqua R. Estuary(Eliot, Kittery)Nutrient/EutrophicationBiological Indicators315-A noneNew listing for Marine Life Use impairment based oneelgrass areal extent and density decreases documentedsince 1996.812-3(DMR Area 1)Portsmouth Harbor (southand west of Gerrish Island)Cause Unknown 315-A noneNew listing for Marine Life Use impairment based oneelgrass areal extent and density decreases documentedsince 1996.1Waterbody ID was 812-1 in 2010 report.2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality ReportMaine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List159NEWDELISTINGSTables 8-5 through 8-8 present specificCausesof impairment that have been removed from the listof Impaired Waters [the”303(d)List”] for the specified waterbody segments. Referto the “Delisting” section on page 62, above, foran explanation of the delistingprocess. Segments may appear multiple times if multiple causes have been delisted. For each waterbody, the category change in2012 for the noted Cause is presented as well as information on whether the waterbody is also listed in other categories. Forassessment units that were delisted for reasons other than TMDL approval, delisting information is presented below.Delisting of Aquatic Life Use Impairment in Category 5-A Water to Category 4-b1) Penobscot RiverFive segments on the freshwater portion on the mainstem of the Penobscot River between Mattawamkeag/Woodville andHampden/Orrington were listed in the 2010 Integrated Report in Category 5-A for Aquatic Life Use Impairments due toDissolved Oxygen (DO) and Nutrient/Eutrophication Biological Indicators (Table 1). The segments in question span a distanceof 94.23 miles and are all classified as Class B.Table 1 2010 Penobscot River Mainstem Segments inCategory 5-AAssessment Unit IDSegment NameLocationLength(miles)ME0102000502_230RPenobscot R-(Mattawamkeagto Cambolasse)Main stem, from Mattawamkeag R to Cambolasse Str 14.05ME0102000502_231R Penobscot R Main stem, from Cambolasse Str to Piscataquis R 19.08ME0102000506_232R Penobscot R Main stem, from Piscataquis R to Orson Is 36.49ME0102000509_233R_01 Penobscot R Main stem, from Orson Is to Veazie Dam 14.51ME0102000513_234R02 Penobscot Main stem, Veazie Damto Reeds Bk 10.1For Class B waterbodies, Maine’s Water Quality Standards (WQS; 38 MRSA, Chapter 3, §465 (3)(A) through(C)]) stipulate that‘The habitat must be characterized as unimpaired’, that ‘The dissolved oxygen content of Class B waters maynot be less than7 parts per million or 75% of saturation, whicheveris higher, except that for the period from October1st to May 14th, in order toensure spawning and egg incubation of indigenous fish species, the 7-day mean dissolved oxygen concentration may not beless than 9.5 parts per million and the 1-day minimum dissolved oxygen concentration may not be less than 8.0 parts permillion in identified fish spawning areas.‘ and that ‘Discharges to Class B waters may not cause adverseimpact to aquatic life in2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality ReportMaine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List160that the receiving waters must be of sufficient quality to support all aquatic species indigenous to the receiving water withoutdetrimental changes in the resident biological community.’.In May 2011, MDEP completed the ‘Penobscot River Phosphorus Wasteload Allocation’ (WLA) report which covered the areafrom Millinocket to Medway (West Branch Penobscot River) and further down to Bangor/Brewer (mainstem Penobscot River).The WLA report identified a total of four industrial dischargers and six significant municipal dischargers that contributephosphorus to these segments and in combination cause the observed aquatic life impairments. The report establishedphosphorus limits for the industrial dischargers and MDEP determined that these reduced loadings wouldbe sufficient toeliminate eutrophic conditions along the entire freshwater portion of the river. Between March and May2011, MDEP issuedMEPDES (Maine Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) permits to all ten dischargers identified in theWLA report. It isexpected that the phosphorus limits established inthe permits to industrial dischargers will result in the elimination of theaquatic life use impairments by 2016. Monitoring data collected in 2011 showed DO attainment in two critical reaches of theriver; preliminary analysis of 2012 data covering the majority of the river also indicate attainment of DO criteria. MDEPtherefore proposes to delist the five Penobscot River segments specified in Table 1 (above) to Category 4-B in the 2012reporting cycle.Delisting of Primary Contact and/or Aquatic Life Use Impairment in Category 5-A Waters toCategory 21) ‘Sebasticook River’ (Main stem, from Burnham bridge to Kennebec R, excluding site of former HalifaxImpoundment,ME0103000309_332R). This assessment unit (AU) waspreviously described as "main stem, below confluence of E and WBranches (excluding the Halifax Impd)"; the updatedname clarifies the location of this AU, which is a22.0-mile segment of theriver in Burnham, Unity/Clinton, Benton and Winslow. This AU and the adjacent upstream AU (Sebasticook R; Main stem, fromE and W Branches to Burnham bridge, including Burnham impoundment’; ME0103000308_332R) were both listed in 2010 withtheir combined length of 30.83 miles; in 2012, theAUs are listed with their correct respective lengths of 22 and 8.83 miles.In Maine’s 2010 Integrated Water Quality Monitoringand Assessment Report, this Class C AU (ME0103000309_332R) waslisted as impaired (Category 5-A) for aquatic lifeuse based on Nutrient/Eutrophication Biological Indicators and DissolvedOxygen data. The AU was also listed for fish consumption use (Category 5-A for dioxin, 5-D for PCBs)and Primary/SecondaryContact Recreation use (Category 4-A for E. coli).In the 2012 reporting cycle, DEP proposes to delist theNutrient/Eutrophication Biological Indicators causeof the aquatic life use impairment from Category 5-A to Category 2 due to2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality ReportMaine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List161attainment of Maine’s narrative criteria for aquatic life use, supported by biological assessments andmeasured improvementsin water chemistry. Other listings for this AU will remain unchanged.Maine's Class C water quality standards require that the water quality must be"suitable...as habitat for fish and other aquaticlife.”andthat“Discharges to Class C waters may cause some changes to aquatic life, except that the receiving watersmust beof sufficient quality to support all species of fish indigenous to the receiving waters and maintain the structure and function ofthe resident biological community.”[38MRSA, Chapter 3, §465 (4)(A) and (C)]The original listing of this AU was likely based onMDEP monitoring data from 1979 and 1981 which showed Total Phosphorus(TP) values ranging from 37 to 110 ug/L with a mean(based on 12 data points) of 78 ug/L (P. Mitnik data) during critical lowflow conditions in the warmer parts of the growingseason. The impairment was caused by historicallypoor (i.e., eutrophic)water quality conditions upstream in Sebasticook Lake (Newport) whose watershed is heavily farmed. Following treatmentand/or cessation of municipal point source discharges, implementation of BMPs to control agriculturalnonpoint sources ofpollution, and 18 years of annual fall lake flushing (to remove TP), inlake phosphorus concentrationshad been significantlyreduced to levels ranging from 16 to 41 ug/L by 2000 (source: Sebasticook Lake TMDL). In 2001, EPA approved aphosphorus-based TMDL for the lake (TMDL # 2468, approval date 3/8/01) which proposed a number of BMPsand NPScontrols for agriculture, residential areas, roadways and other land uses. During the past decade (2002-2011), water qualitymeasures (Secchi disk transparencies, average TP, average Chlorophyll-a) in the lake have continued toshow significantimprovements.As a result of this upstream improvement in water quality, conditions in the river below the lake havealso improved. NewMDEP monitoring data from 2007, 2009 and 2012 indicate markedly reduced nutrient levels between 31 and39 ppb and noimpairment of the algal community in the river. Based on Maine’s narrative water quality criteria foraquatic life use and thedata explained above, MDEP therefore concludes thatthe Nutrient/Eutrophication Biological Indicatorsimpairment in the AU inquestion no longer exists and should be removed from Category 5-A.2)Sabattus River between Sabattus P and AndroscogginR(ME0104000210_418R01) is an 11.4-mile segment of the river inSabattus and Lisbon. In Maine’s 2010 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report, thisassessment unit (AU)was listed as impaired (Category 5-A) for aquatic life use with causes Nutrient/Eutrophication Biological Indicators, DissolvedOxygen and Benthic-Macroinvertebrates Bioassessments. A review of the listings and underlying data for the 2012 reportingcycle revealed that the macroinvertebrate listing was partially in error and MDEP therefore proposes to delist this cause ofimpairment in one of two portions of the historic stream segment. The review also revealed that the AU in question containedboth a statutory Class B and a statutory Class C stretch [38 MRSA, Chapter 3, §467, 1.D. and 1.D.(3)];this problem will beremedied in the 2012 IR by splitting the existing AU into two. Coincidentally, the splitting of the existing AU allows MDEP torectify the erroneous macroinvertebrate listing.2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality ReportMaine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List162Biological monitoring data collected at 3 locationsin the upstream, Class C, stretch of the historicAU over the course of 10years (total of 7 sampling events in 4 years) showed that the macroinvertebrate community attained Class C aquatic life criteriain all instances. Biological monitoring data collected at 4 locations in the downstream, Class B, stretch of the historic AU overthe course of 18 years (total of 8 sampling eventsin 5 years) showed that the macroinvertebrate community did not attain ClassB aquatic life criteria in 5 sampling events. Thehistoric AU therefore incorrectly identified the upstream stretch as having animpaired macroinvertebrate community.To remedy both problems (mixed statutory class andpartially incorrect macroinvertebrate impairment),the historic AU is splitinto the following two new AUs in the 2012 IR:a) ME0104000210_418R01 (upstream): historic AU is renamed to ‘Sabattus River between Sabattus P and Androscoggin R’(location description ‘From Sabattus Pond to limitsof Lisbon urban area’), 9.1 miles, Class C, Category 5-A for aquatic lifeuse with Causes Nutrient/Eutrophication BiologicalIndicators and Dissolved Oxygen. The cause Benthic-MacroinvertebrateBioassessments has been delisted in 2012 because macroinvertebrates attain class C criteria.b) ME0104000210_418R03 (downstream): new AU, created in 2012, is named ‘Sabattus River between Sabattus P andAndroscoggin R’ (location description ‘From limitsof the Lisbon urban area to Androscoggin River’), 2.3 miles, Class B,Category 5-A for aquatic life use with causes Nutrient/Eutrophication Biological Indicators, DissolvedOxygen and BenthicMacroinvertebrates Bioassessments.3)Hermon Pond, located in Penobscot County, was listed for non-attainment of two designated uses, Aquatic Life Support andPrimary Contact, due to recurrent algal blooms. Thesurface area of the pond is approximately 440 acres, water flushes throughthe pond approximately 31 times per year, maximum depth is 17 feet and average depth 10 feet. The pond is considered to beboth eutrophic and dystrophic (color average 73 Platinum-Cobalt Units). A significant portion of Hermon Pond’s directwatershed is comprised of wetlands; recent data acquired from an adjacent wetland suggests that the pond is in equilibriumwith the wetlands. Results from a paleolimnological study indicate the existence of diatom indicatorspecies representative ofeutrophic trophic conditions prior to settlement that are very similar to conditions that currently exist. Thus Hermon Pond’strophic state is considered stable and in attainment of its classification.4)Hammond Pond, located in Penobscot County, was listed for non-attainment of two designated uses, Aquatic Life Support andPrimary Contact due to recurrent algal blooms. Thesurface area of the pond is approximately 96 acres,water flushes throughthe pond approximately 186 times per year, maximumdepth is 15 feet and average depth 10 feet. The pond is considered tobe both eutrophic and dystrophic (color average 67Platinum-Cobalt Units). A significant portion of Hammond Pond’s directwatershed is comprised of wetlands; recent data acquired from an adjacent wetland suggests that the pond is in equilibrium2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality ReportMaine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List163with the wetlands. In addition, the high flushingrate indicates that water from upstream Hermon Ponddominates conditions inHammond Pond. Results from a paleolimnological study on Hermon Pond indicate the existence of diatom indicator speciesrepresentative of eutrophic trophic conditions prior to settlement that are very similar to conditionsthat currently exist. Thusdownstream Hammond Pond’s trophic state is considered stable and in attainment of its classification.Listing of New Impairment Causes for Impaired Waters with Approved TMDLs (Category 4-A)1) Dickey Brook(West Fork, East Fork and mainstem below the confluence of the two) inFort Kent, Frenchville, St. Agatha andCross Lake Township (ME0101000303_124R01) is a 19.5-mile Class B stream impaired for aquatic life usebased onNutrient/Eutrophication Biological Indicators and Dissolved Oxygen data. Dickey Brookwas moved from Category 5A to 4A inthe 2006 reporting cycle due to a TMDL approved in2006 for Cross Lake and Daigle Pond for Total Phosphorus (TMDL #30683, approval date 9/28/06). The TMDL was designed to address water quality stressors associated with non-point source(NPS) runoff (nutrients and sediment) from agricultural fields, forestry operations and developed land(roads, low densityresidential development, septic systems).In the 2012 listing cycle, DEP proposes to list anadditional aquatic life use impairment cause for Dickey Brookdue toimpairments in the algal community (periphyton indicator bioassessments). [Maine's Class B water quality standards requirethat the water quality must be"suitable...as habitat for fish and other aquatic life. The habitat must be characterized asunimpaired."Furthermore,"Discharges to Class B waters may not cause adverseimpact to aquatic life in that the receivingwaters must be of sufficient quality to support allaquatic species indigenous to the receiving waterwithout detrimental changesin the resident biological community."38 MRSA, Chapter 3,§465(3)(A) and (C).]The primary stressors of the algal community in Dickey Brook are sediment and nutrients (Total Phosphorus), most likelyattributable to runoff from agricultural fields. The TMDL identified sediment from erosion as a contributor to the impairments inthe watershed and specified watershed management efforts, best management practices, and education/outreach actions aspart of its Phosphorus Control Action Plan to curbthis form of NPS pollution. It is therefore anticipated that the existing TMDLwill address the recently identified impairments tothe periphyton community.2)Prestile Stream above dam in Mars Hill(ME0101000501_149R01)Prestile Stream above dam in Mars Hill(Including ChristinaReservoir) inEaston, Presque Isle, Westfield and Mars Hill (ME0101000501_149R01) is a 15.78-mile Class A stream impairedfor aquatic life use based on Benthic-Macroinvertebrate Bioassessments, Nutrient/Eutrophication Biological Indicators andDissolved Oxygen data. This segment of Prestile Streamwas moved from Category 5-A to 4-A in the 2010 reporting cycle dueto a TMDL approved in 2010 for Total Phosphorus, Total Nitrogen and Sediment (TMDL # 38544-38546, approval date2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality ReportMaine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List1645/10/12). The TMDL was designed to address water quality stressors associated with non-point source (NPS) runoff (nutrientsand sediment), primarily from agricultural fields but also from forestry practices, recreational activities and other lesser sources.In the 2012 listing cycle, DEP proposes to list anadditional aquatic life use impairment cause for this segment of PrestileStreamdue to impairments in the algal community (periphyton indicator bioassessments). [Maine's Class A water qualitystandards require that the water quality must be"suitable...as habitat for fish and other aquatic life. The habitat must becharacterized as natural."38 MRSA, Chapter 3, §465(2)(A).]The primary stressors of the algal community in this segment of Prestile Streamare excess nutrients (Total Phosphorus), mostlikely attributable to runoff from agricultural fields; sediment was identified as a secondary stressor (T. Danielson, DEP, pers.comm.). The TMDL identified nutrients and sedimentfrom soil erosion from agricultural fields as a contributor to theimpairments in the watershed and specified watershed management efforts, best management practices, andeducation/outreach actions (targeting agriculturalland owners and municipal officials) as part of itsRecommendations to curbthis form of NPS pollution. It is therefore anticipated that the existing TMDL will address the recently identified impairments tothe periphyton community.3) Birch Streamin Bangor (ME0102000510_224R04) is a 0.5-mile Class B stream impaired for aquatic life use based on benthicmacroinvertebrate assessment. Birch Stream is already listed in Category 4-A due to a TMDL approved in 2007 for %Impervious Cover, Lead and Zinc (TMDL # 33160, approval date 9/12/07). The TMDL was designed to address water qualitystressors associated with overall urban developmentand excessive stormwater runoff, and Birch Streamwas subsequentlymoved from Category 5-A to 4-A in the 2008 listingcycle.In the 2012 listing cycle, DEP proposes to list anadditional aquatic life use impairment cause for Birch Stream due toimpairments in the algal community (periphyton indicator bioassessments). [Maine's Class B water quality standards requirethat the water quality must be"suitable...as habitat for fish and other aquatic life. The habitat must be characterized asunimpaired."Furthermore,"Discharges to Class B waters may not cause adverseimpact to aquatic life in that the receivingwaters must be of sufficient quality to support allaquatic species indigenous to the receiving waterwithout detrimental changesin the resident biological community."38 MRSA, Chapter 3, §465(3)(A) and (C).]The primary stressors of the algal community in Birch Stream are excess nutrients, high specific conductivity, and alteredhydrology, most likely attributable to runoff fromimpervious surfaces (there are no wastewater treatment plant discharges in thewatershed). Sources of stormwater in the watershedinclude Bangor International Airport, Maine Air National Guard, and theairport mall. Stormwater discharges are being regulated by ME DEP with its MS4 general permit, MSGPsfor industries,through implementation of the watershed managementplan, and with oversight from EPA. It is thereforeanticipated that theplanning, best management practices, and stream restoration actions associated with the existing TMDL’s % IC WLA & LA willaddress impairments to the periphyton community aswell as the benthic community.2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality ReportMaine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List165Delisting of Primary Contact and/or Aquatic Life Use Impairment in Category 4-A water toCategory 21) Boynton Brookin Bradley (AU ME0102000509_226R02) is a 3.06-mileClass A stream that is listed as impaired for Primary andSecondary Contact Recreation due to Escherichia coli contamination. This assessment unit (AU) was included in Maine’s 2008Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and AssessmentReport in Category 5-B for bacteria-only impairment. Following approvalof Maine’s Statewide Bacteria TMDL on 9/28/09, Boynton Brook was moved to Category 4-A in the 2010 reporting cycle. ForClass A waterbodies, Maine’s Water Quality Standards [WQS; 38 MRSA, Chapter 3, §465 (2)(B)] stipulatethat ‘the bacteriacontent shall be as naturally occurs’. For assessment purposes, the numeric criteria of 29 MPN/100 mlfor a geometric meanand 194 MPN/100 ml for instantaneous level (the Class GPA standards for E. coli) are used as surrogatemetrics for Class Awaterbodies1. For the purpose of determining WQS attainment with respect to Clean Water Act §303(d) listings, only thegeometric mean criterion is used (see Chapter 4, section Data Interpretation).In 2007, Boynton Brook was included in a statewidebacteria study and results indicated an overall geometric mean of 343MPN/100 ml; this result was based on a limited amount of data (one site, a total of five results collected over two months). Infact, the total number of samples did not comply with Maine DEP’s standard practice of requiring a minimum sample size of sixbacteria samples for calculation of a geometric mean used (see Chapter 4, section Data Interpretation). In 2010, MDEPconducted a more comprehensive investigation of thewatershed (three sites, a total of fifteen resultscollected over fourmonths). Results showed that the geometric mean for the entire watershed was low (20 MPN/100 ml) compared to the relevantsurrogate criterion of 29 MPN/100 ml; furthermore,no samples exceeded the instantaneous level of 194MPN/100 ml. MDEPtherefore concludes that Boynton Brook attains water quality criteria for Primary and Secondary Contact Recreation and can beremoved from the impaired streams list.2) Rock Brook2in Camden (ME0105000220_522R02_01) is a 1.12-mileClass B stream that is listed as impaired for Primary andSecondary Contact Recreation due toEscherichia colicontamination. This assessment unit (AU) was included in Maine’s 2008Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and AssessmentReport in Category 5-B for bacteria-only impairment. Following approvalof Maine’s Statewide Bacteria TMDL on 9/28/09, RockBrook was moved to Category 4-A in the 2010 reporting cycle. ForClass B waterbodies, Maine’s Water Quality Standards [WQS; 38 MRSA, Chapter 3, §465 (4)(A) and (C)] stipulate that‘Between May 15th and September 30th, the number ofEscherichia coli bacteria of human and domestic animal origin ... maynot exceed a geometric mean of 64 per 100 milliliters or an instantaneous level of 236 per 100 milliliters’. For the purpose of1Maine Statewide Bacteria TMDL, August 2009 (report # DEPLW-1002), Table 3-1.2Rock Brook is known as Unnamed Brook (Camden) inMaine Statewide Bacteria TMDL,August 20092012 Maine Integrated Water Quality ReportMaine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List166determining WQS attainment with respect to Clean Water Act §303(d) listings, only the geometric mean criterion is used (seeChapter 4, section Data Interpretation).In 2007, Rock Brook was included in a statewide bacteria study and results indicated an overall geometric mean of 105MPN/100 ml; this result was based on a limited amount of data (one site, a total of six results collected over two months). In2010, MDEP conducted a more comprehensive investigation of the watershed (three sites, a total of sixteen results collectedover three months). Results showed that the geometric mean for the entire watershed was very low (14MPN/100 ml)compared to the relevant criterion of 64 MPN/100 ml. MDEP therefore concludes that Rock Brook attainswater quality criteriafor Primary and Secondary Contact Recreation and can be removed from the impaired streams list.3) Echo Lake, located in Aroostook County, was listed for non-attainment of two designated uses, Aquatic Life Support andPrimary Contact, due to recurrent algal blooms. Thesurface area of the lake is approximately 90 acres, water flushes throughthe lake approximately 4.5 times per year, maximumdepth is 9 feet and average depth 5 feet. Echo Lake is considered ashallow productive system and supported algal blooms most years prior to 2001. Since 2001, data indicate that transparencieshave not fallen below Maine’s 2 meter bloom threshold for at least six years. A comparison of data collected over the pastdecade to the long term dataset suggests that the lake has improved considerably since data collectionbegan and now attainsGPA classification.4) Little Cobbosseecontee Lake, located in Kennebec County, was listed for non-attainment of two designated uses, Aquatic LifeSupport and Primary Contact, due to recurrent algalblooms. The surface area of the lake is approximately 79 acres, waterflushes through the lake approximately 4.6 times per year, maximum depth is 33 feet and average depth17 feet. During the1980s, Little Cobbosseecontee Lake supported algalblooms nearly every year. The lake has experiencedonly one bloom ineach subsequent decade. The lake remains a stable,eutrophic water and data indicate that it is now attaining its GPA waterclassification.Table 8-5 Rivers/Streams Delisted to Another CategoryA ‘0’ in column ‘Category, 2010’ indicates that theassessment unit (AU) was not listed in that year for that cause. These particularAU/cause combinations were initially listed as impaired (Category 5-A) in the 2012 reporting cycle butsubsequently delisted toCategory 4-A in the same cycle due to TMDL approval; see Table 8-1 for more information. Abbreviations used in column ‘Category,Other 2012’ in Table 8-5 are as follows: A/P, (Algae) Periphyton (Aufwuchs) Indicator Bioassessments;DO, Dissolved Oxygen; HA,2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality ReportMaine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List167Habitat Assessment (Streams); MI, Benthic-Macroinvertebrate Bioassessments (Streams); N/E, Nutrient/Eutrophication BiologicalIndicators; PCBs, Polychlorinated biphenyls.ADB AssessmentUnit IDSegment NameLocationCauseCategoryReason forRemovalDelisting Comment20102012Other2012ME0102000502_230RPenobscot R-(Mattawamkeag toCambolasse)Main stem, fromMattawamkeag R toCambolasse StrNutrient/Eutrophication BiologicalIndicators5-A 4-B 4-B (DO)TMDLAlternative (4B)2011 permits providingnutrient limits areexpected to correctexisting aquatic life useimpairments. Expectedto attain in 2016.ME0102000502_230RPenobscot R-(Mattawamkeag toCambolasse)Main stem, fromMattawamkeag R toCambolasse StrOxygen,Dissolved5-A 4-B 4-B (N/E)TMDLAlternative (4B)ME0102000502_231R Penobscot RMain stem, fromCambolasse Str toPiscataquis RNutrient/Eutrophication BiologicalIndicators5-A 4-B4-A(dioxin)4-B (DO)5-D(PCBs)TMDLAlternative (4B)2011 permits providingnutrient limits areexpected to correctexisting aquatic life useimpairments. Expectedto attain in 2016.ME0102000502_231R Penobscot RMain stem, fromCambolasse Str toPiscataquis ROxygen,Dissolved5-A 4-B4-A(dioxin)4-B (N/E)5-D(PCBs)TMDLAlternative (4B)ME0102000506_232R Penobscot RMain stem, fromPiscataquis R toOrson IsNutrient/Eutrophication BiologicalIndicators5-A 4-B4-A(dioxin)4-B (DO)5-D(PCBs)TMDLAlternative (4B)2011 permits providingnutrient limits areexpected to correctexisting aquatic life useimpairments. Expectedto attain in 2016.ME0102000506_232R Penobscot RMain stem, fromPiscataquis R toOrson IsOxygen,Dissolved5-A 4-B4-A(dioxin)4-B (N/E)5-D(PCBs)TMDLAlternative (4B)ME0102000509_226R02Boynton Brook Bradley Escherichia coli 4-A 2 noneApplicableWQS attained;reason forrecoveryunspecified2010 monitoring datashow attainment ofbacteria standards.2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality ReportMaine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List168ADB AssessmentUnit IDSegment NameLocationCauseCategoryReason forRemovalDelisting Comment20102012Other2012ME0102000509_233R_01Penobscot RMain stem, fromOrson Is to VeazieDamNutrient/Eutrophication BiologicalIndicators5-A 4-B4-A(dioxin)4-B (DO)5-D(PCBs)TMDLAlternative (4B)2011 permits providingnutrient limits areexpected to correctexisting aquatic life useimpairments. Expectedto attain in 2016.ME0102000509_233R_01Penobscot RMain stem, fromOrson Is to VeazieDamOxygen,Dissolved5-A 4-B4-A(dioxin)4-B (N/E)5-D(PCBs)TMDLAlternative (4B)ME0102000510_224R05Capehart(Pushaw) Brook(Bangor)Tributary toKenduskeag StreamHabitatAssessment(Streams)5-A 4-A noneTMDLapproved orestablished byEPA (4A)9/27/12: Approval ofStatewide % ImperviousCover TMDL.ME0102000510_224R06Arctic Brook (nearValley Ave,Bangor)Tributary toKenduskeag StreamBenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments5-A 4-A 4-A (HA)TMDLapproved orestablished byEPA (4A)9/27/12: Approval ofStatewide % ImperviousCover TMDL.ME0102000510_224R06Arctic Brook (nearValley Ave,Bangor)Tributary toKenduskeag StreamHabitatAssessment(Streams)5-A 4-A 4-A (MI)ME0102000511_225R01_02Shaw Brook(Bangor,Hampden)Tributary toPenobscot RiverBenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments5-A 4-A4-A (HA,A/P)TMDLapproved orestablished byEPA (4A)9/27/12: Approval ofStatewide % ImperviousCover TMDL.ME0102000511_225R01_02Shaw Brook(Bangor,Hampden)Tributary toPenobscot RiverHabitatAssessment(Streams)5-A 4-A4-A (MI,A/P)ME0102000511_225R01_02Shaw Brook(Bangor,Hampden)Tributary toPenobscot RiverPeriphyton(Aufwuchs)IndicatorBioassessments5-A 4-A4-A (MI,HA)ME0102000511_225R02Sucker Brook(Hampden)(formerly'Unnamed St.-Hampden')Tributary toPenobscot R.entering from thewest, in HampdenBenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments5-A 4-A 4-A (DO)TMDLapproved orestablished byEPA (4A)9/27/12: Approval ofStatewide % ImperviousCover TMDL.2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality ReportMaine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List169ADB AssessmentUnit IDSegment NameLocationCauseCategoryReason forRemovalDelisting Comment20102012Other2012ME0102000511_225R02Sucker Brook(Hampden)(formerly'Unnamed St.-Hampden')Tributary toPenobscot R.entering from thewest, in HampdenOxygen,Dissolved5-A 4-A 4-A (MI)ME0102000513_234R02PenobscotMain stem, VeazieDam to Reeds BkNutrient/Eutrophication BiologicalIndicators5-A 4-B4-A(dioxin)4-B (DO)5-D(PCBs)TMDLAlternative (4B)2011 permits providingnutrient limits areexpected to correctexisting aquatic life useimpairments. Expectedto attain in 2016.ME0102000513_234R02PenobscotMain stem, VeazieDam to Reeds BkOxygen,Dissolved5-A 4-B4-A(dioxin)4-B (N/E)5-D(PCBs)TMDLAlternative (4B)ME0103000306_320R03Whitten Brook(Skowhegan)Tributary toKennebec RiverBenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments5-A 4-A4-A (E.coli, HA)TMDLapproved orestablished byEPA (4A)9/27/12: Approval ofStatewide % ImperviousCover TMDL.ME0103000306_320R03Whitten Brook(Skowhegan)Tributary toKennebec RiverHabitatAssessment(Streams)5-A 4-A4-A (E.coli, MI)ME0103000309_332R Sebasticook RiverMain stem, fromBurnham bridge toKennebec R(excluding site offormer Halifax Impd)Nutrient/Eutrophication BiologicalIndicators5-A 24-A(bacteria)5-A(dioxin,DO)5-D (PCBs)ApplicableWQS attained;due torestorationactivities10/2/12Nutrient/EutrophicationBiological Indicatorscause of Aquatic LifeUse impairment delistedto Category 2 due to newdata showing removal ofcause of impairment.ME0103000312_333R02Whitney Brook(Augusta)Tributary toKennebec RiverBenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments5-A 4-A4-A (E.coli, A/P)TMDLapproved orestablished byEPA (4A)9/27/12: Approval ofStatewide % ImperviousCover TMDL.ME0103000312_333R02Whitney Brook(Augusta)Tributary toKennebec RiverPeriphyton(Aufwuchs)IndicatorBioassessments5-A4-A4-A (E.coli, MI)2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality ReportMaine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List170ADB AssessmentUnit IDSegment NameLocationCauseCategoryReason forRemovalDelisting Comment20102012Other2012ME0103000312_333R03Kennedy Brook(Augusta)Tributary toKennebec RiverBenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments5-A 4-A 4-A (A/P)TMDLapproved orestablished byEPA (4A)9/27/12: Approval ofStatewide % ImperviousCover TMDL.ME0103000312_333R03Kennedy Brook(Augusta)Tributary toKennebec RiverPeriphyton(Aufwuchs)IndicatorBioassessments0 4-A 4-A (MI)ME0103000312_333R04Unnamed tributaryto Bond BrookAugustaBenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments5-A 4-A4-A (HA,P/A)TMDLapproved orestablished byEPA (4A)9/27/12: Approval ofStatewide % ImperviousCover TMDL.ME0103000312_333R04Unnamed tributaryto Bond BrookAugustaHabitatAssessment(Streams)5-A 4-A4-A (MI,A/P)ME0103000312_333R04Unnamed tributaryto Bond BrookAugustaPeriphyton(Aufwuchs)IndicatorBioassessments0 4-A4-A (MI,HA)ME0104000208_413R04Logan Brook,AuburnTributary toAndroscoggin RiverHabitatAssessment(Streams)5-A 4-A4-A (E.coli, DO)TMDLapproved orestablished byEPA (4A)9/27/12: Approval ofStatewide % ImperviousCover TMDL.ME0104000208_413R04Logan Brook,AuburnTributary toAndroscoggin RiverOxygen,Dissolved5-A 4-A4-A (E.coli, HA)ME0104000210_418R01Sabattus Riverbetween Sabattusand AndroscogginRFrom Sabattus Pondto limits of Lisbonurban areaBenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Streams)5-A 25-A (DO,N/EApplicableWQS attained;original basisfor listing wasincorrectOriginal basis for listingincorrect; documentedclassification attainmentat three biomonitoringstations on 2-3occasions.ME0104000210_419R01Unnamed Brook(Biomon Sta. 347-Lisbon Falls at Rt196)Tributary toAndroscoggin RiverHabitatAssessment(Streams)5-A 4-A noneTMDLapproved orestablished byEPA (4A)9/27/12: Approval ofStatewide % ImperviousCover TMDL.ME0104000210_419R02Hart Brook(Lewiston) A.K.ADill Brook andincluding Goff BkTributary toAndroscoggin RiverBenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments5-A 4-A4-A (E.coli, HA,DO, A/P)TMDLapproved orestablished byEPA (4A)9/27/12: Approval ofStatewide % ImperviousCover TMDL.2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality ReportMaine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List171ADB AssessmentUnit IDSegment NameLocationCauseCategoryReason forRemovalDelisting Comment20102012Other2012ME0104000210_419R02Hart Brook(Lewiston) A.K.ADill Brook andincluding Goff BkTributary toAndroscoggin RiverHabitatAssessment(Streams)5-A 4-A4-A (E.coli, MI,DO, A/P)ME0104000210_419R02Hart Brook(Lewiston) A.K.ADill Brook andincluding Goff BkTributary toAndroscoggin RiverOxygen,Dissolved5-A 4-A4-A (E.coli, MI,HA, A/P)ME0104000210_419R02Hart Brook(Lewiston) A.K.ADill Brook andincluding Goff BkTributary toAndroscoggin RiverPeriphyton(Aufwuchs)IndicatorBioassessments0 4-A4-A (E.coli, MI,HA, DO)ME0104000210_420R01Unnamed tributary(Brunswick 2) toAndroscoggin RBiomon Sta 641(near River Rd.Brunswick)43.91538/69.98089BenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments5-A 4-A 4-A (HA)TMDLapproved orestablished byEPA (4A)9/27/12: Approval ofStatewide % ImperviousCover TMDL.ME0104000210_420R01Unnamed tributary(Brunswick 2) toAndroscoggin RBiomon Sta 641(near River Rd.Brunswick)43.91538/69.98089HabitatAssessment(Streams)5-A 4-A 4-A (MI)ME0104000210_420R02Unnamed tributary(Brunswick 3) toAndroscoggin RBiomon Sta 642(near Water St.Brunswick)43.92167/69.95586BenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments5-A 4-A 4-A (HA)TMDLapproved orestablished byEPA (4A)9/27/12: Approval ofStatewide % ImperviousCover TMDL.ME0104000210_420R02Unnamed tributary(Brunswick 3) toAndroscoggin RBiomon Sta 642(near Water St.Brunswick)43.92167/69.95586HabitatAssessment(Streams)5-A 4-A 4-A (MI)ME0104000210_420R03Unnamed tributary(Brunswick 4) toAndroscoggin RBiomon Sta 643(near Jordan Ave.,Brunswick)43.91077/69.94130BenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments5-A 4-A 4-A (HA)TMDLapproved orestablished byEPA (4A)9/27/12: Approval ofStatewide % ImperviousCover TMDL.ME0104000210_420R03Unnamed tributary(Brunswick 4) toAndroscoggin RBiomon Sta 643(near Jordan Ave.,Brunswick)43.91077/69.94130HabitatAssessment(Streams)5-A 4-A 4-A (MI)2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality ReportMaine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List172ADB AssessmentUnit IDSegment NameLocationCauseCategoryReason forRemovalDelisting Comment20102012Other2012ME0104000210_420R04Unnamed tributary(Topsham 2) toAndroscoggin RBio Sta 633(Topsham-Dwnstrmof Rt. 24 crossing)43.92470/69.95027BenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments0 4-A 4-A (HA)TMDLapproved orestablished byEPA (4A)9/27/12: Approval ofStatewide % ImperviousCover TMDL.ME0104000210_420R04Unnamed tributary(Topsham 2) toAndroscoggin RBio Sta 633(Topsham-Dwnstrmof Rt. 24 crossing)43.92470/69.95027HabitatAssessment(Streams)5-A 4-A 4-A (MI)ME0104000210_420R05Unnamed tributary(Topsham 4) toAndroscogginBioSta 634; DrainsTopsham Fair MallBenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments5-A 4-A noneTMDLapproved orestablished byEPA (4A)9/27/12: Approval ofStatewide % ImperviousCover TMDL.ME0105000213_514R_01Card Brook(Ellsworth)Tributary to UnionRiverBenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments5-A 4-A4-A (E.coli, DO)TMDLapproved orestablished byEPA (4A)9/27/12: Approval ofStatewide % ImperviousCover TMDL.ME0105000213_514R_01Card Brook(Ellsworth)Tributary to UnionRiverOxygen,Dissolved5-A 4-A4-A (E.coli, MI)ME0105000220_522R02_01Rock Brook(formerly'Unnamed Brook')(Camden)Escherichia coli 4-A 2 noneApplicableWQS attained;reason forrecoveryunspecified2010 monitoring datashow attainment ofbacteria standards.ME0106000104_611R02Phillips Brook(Scarborough)Tributary to DunstanRiverHabitatAssessment(Streams)5-A 4-A 4-A (DO)TMDLapproved orestablished byEPA (4A)9/27/12: Approval ofStatewide % ImperviousCover TMDL.ME0106000104_611R02Phillips Brook(Scarborough)Tributary to DunstanRiverOxygen,Dissolved0 4-A 4-A (HA)ME0106000105_607R11_01Nasons Brook(Portland), trib toFore RiverTributary to ForeRiverBenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments5-A 4-A4-A (DO,A/P)TMDLapproved orestablished byEPA (4A)9/27/12: Approval ofStatewide % ImperviousCover TMDL.ME0106000105_607R11_01Nasons Brook(Portland), trib toFore RiverTributary to ForeRiverOxygen,Dissolved0 4-A4-A (MI,A/P)2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality ReportMaine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List173ADB AssessmentUnit IDSegment NameLocationCauseCategoryReason forRemovalDelisting Comment20102012Other2012ME0106000105_607R11_01Nasons Brook(Portland), trib toFore RiverTributary to ForeRiverPeriphyton(Aufwuchs)IndicatorBioassessments0 4-A4-A (MI,DO)ME0106000105_607R11_02Nasons Brook(Westbrook), tribto Fore RiverTributary to ForeRiverBenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments5-A 4-A4-A (DO,A/P)TMDLapproved orestablished byEPA (4A)9/27/12: Approval ofStatewide % ImperviousCover TMDL.ME0106000105_607R11_02Nasons Brook(Westbrook), tribto Fore RiverTributary to ForeRiverOxygen,Dissolved0 4-A4-A (MI,A/P)ME0106000105_607R11_02Nasons Brook(Westbrook), tribto Fore RiverTributary to ForeRiverPeriphyton(Aufwuchs)IndicatorBioassessments0 4-A4-A (MI,DO)ME0106000105_609R01Dole Brook(formerly knownas 'UnnamedStream- Portland3')Tributary toPresumpscot R.entering east of Rt.302 in PortlandBenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments5-A 4-A noneTMDLapproved orestablished byEPA (4A)9/27/12: Approval ofStatewide % ImperviousCover TMDL.ME0106000105_610R01Capisic Brook PortlandBenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments5-A 4-A4-A (HA,A/P)TMDLapproved orestablished byEPA (4A)9/27/12: Approval ofStatewide % ImperviousCover TMDL.ME0106000105_610R01Capisic Brook PortlandHabitatAssessment(Streams)5-A 4-A4-A (MI,A/P)ME0106000105_610R01Capisic Brook PortlandPeriphyton(Aufwuchs)IndicatorBioassessments0 4-A4-A (MI,HA)ME0106000105_610R06Kimball BrookSouth Portland,tributary to ForeRiver/Casco BayBenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments5-A 4-A 4-A (HA)TMDLapproved orestablished byEPA (4A)9/27/12: Approval ofStatewide % ImperviousCover TMDL.ME0106000105_610R06Kimball BrookSouth Portland,tributary to ForeRiver/Casco BayHabitatAssessment(Streams)5-A 4-A 4-A (MI)2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality ReportMaine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List174ADB AssessmentUnit IDSegment NameLocationCauseCategoryReason forRemovalDelisting Comment20102012Other2012ME0106000105_610R07Red Brook(Scarborough, SPortland)Tributary to LongCreekHabitatAssessment(Streams)5-A 4-A5-D(PCBs)TMDLapproved orestablished byEPA (4A)9/27/12: Approval ofStatewide % ImperviousCover TMDL.ME0106000106_602R01Frost Gully BrookFreeport, tributary toHarrseeket RiverBenthic-MacroinvertebrateBioassessments5-A 4-A4-A (E.coli, HA)TMDLapproved orestablished byEPA (4A)9/27/12: Approval ofStatewide % ImperviousCover TMDL.ME0106000106_602R01Frost Gully BrookFreeport, tributary toHarrseeket RiverHabitatAssessment(Streams)5-A 4-A4-A (E.coli, MI)ME0106000106_602R02Mare Brook(Brunswick) andselected tributariesAU includestributariesdownstream ofairport runwayBenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments0 4-A 4-A (HA)TMDLapproved orestablished byEPA (4A)9/27/12: Approval ofStatewide % ImperviousCover TMDL.ME0106000106_602R02Mare Brook(Brunswick) andselected tributariesAU includestributariesdownstream ofairport runwayHabitatAssessment(Streams)5-A 4-A 4-A (MI)ME0106000106_602R03Concord Gully(Freeport)Tributary toHarraseeket RiverBenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments5-A 4-A4-A (HA,DO, A/P)5-A (E.coli)TMDLapproved orestablished byEPA (4A)9/27/12: Approval ofStatewide % ImperviousCover TMDL.ME0106000106_602R03Concord Gully(Freeport)Tributary toHarraseeket RiverHabitatAssessment(Streams)5-A 4-A4-A (MI,DO, A/P)5-A (E.coli)ME0106000106_602R03Concord Gully(Freeport)Tributary toHarraseeket RiverOxygen,Dissolved5-A 4-A4-A (MI,HA, A/P)5-A (E.coli)ME0106000106_602R03Concord Gully(Freeport)Tributary toHarraseeket RiverPeriphyton(Aufwuchs)IndicatorBioassessments0 4-A4-A (MI,HA, DO)5-A (E.coli)2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality ReportMaine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List175ADB AssessmentUnit IDSegment NameLocationCauseCategoryReason forRemovalDelisting Comment20102012Other2012ME0106000106_612R01_01Goosefare Brookbelow I-95Saco, Old OrchardBeachBenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments0 4-A4-A(metals)5-A (E.coli)TMDLapproved orestablished byEPA (4A)9/27/12: Approval ofStatewide % ImperviousCover TMDL.ME0106000211_616R05Thacher Bk(Biddeford)Tributary to SacoRiverBenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments5-A 4-A4-A (E.coli)TMDLapproved orestablished byEPA (4A)9/27/12: Approval ofStatewide % ImperviousCover TMDL.ME0106000304_625R04Goodall Brook(Sanford)Upstream ofDaylight AveBenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments3 4-A 4-A (HA)TMDLapproved orestablished byEPA (4A)9/27/12: Approval ofStatewide % ImperviousCover TMDL.ME0106000304_625R04Goodall Brook(Sanford)Upstream ofDaylight AveHabitatAssessment(Streams)0 4-A 4-A (MI)Table 8-6 Lakes/Ponds Delisted to Another CategoryHUCLake NameLake IDImpaired UseCategoryReason for RemovalDelisting Comment20102012Other20120103000511Hermon Pond 2286Aquatic Life,Primary Contact5-A 2 noneApplicable WQS attained;original basis for listingwas incorrectPaleo evidence indicates naturallyeutrophic; monitoring data fromextensive wetlands in watershedsuggest that the pond is inequilibrium with the wetlands.0103000511Hammond Pond 2294Aquatic Life,Primary Contact5-A 2 noneApplicable WQS attained;original basis for listingwas incorrectPaleo evidence indicates naturallyeutrophic; monitoring data fromextensive wetlands in watershedsuggest that the pond is inequilibrium with the wetlands.2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality ReportMaine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List176HUCLake NameLake IDImpaired UseCategoryReason for RemovalDelisting Comment20102012Other20120101000412 Echo L 1776Aquatic Life,Primary Contact4-A 2 none Applicable WQS attainedData obtained over last decadeindicate improvement in waterquality0103000311LittleCobbosseecontee8065Aquatic Life,Primary Contact4-A 2 none Applicable WQS attainedData obtained over last decadeindicate improvement in waterqualityTable 8-7 Wetlands Delisted to Another CategoryNote that Dole Brook was initially listed as impaired (Category 5-A) in the 2012 reporting cycle but subsequently delisted to Category4-A in the same cycle due to TMDL approval; see Table 8-3 for more information.ADB AssessmentUnit IDSegmentNameLocationCauseCategoryReason forRemovalDelisting Comment20102012Other2012ME0106000105_607R11_01_W127Nasons BrookWetlandComplex,PortlandWetland complexdraining to Fore Riverincluding wetlandstation W-127BenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Wetlands)5-A 4-A noneTMDLapproved orestablished byEPA (4A)9/27/12: Approval ofStatewide % ImperviousCover TMDL.ME0106000105_607R11_02_W172Nasons BrookWetlandComplex,WestbrookWetland complexdraining to Fore Riverincluding wetlandstation W-172BenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Wetlands)5-A 4-A noneTMDLapproved orestablished byEPA (4A)9/27/12: Approval ofStatewide % ImperviousCover TMDL.ME0106000105_609R01_W026Dole BrookwetlandsTributary toPresumpscot R,entering east of Rt.302 in Portland,wetland stationsW025 and W026BenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Wetlands)3 4-A noneTMDLapproved orestablished byEPA (4A)9/27/12: Approval ofStatewide % ImperviousCover TMDL.2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality ReportMaine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List177ADB AssessmentUnit IDSegmentNameLocationCauseCategoryReason forRemovalDelisting Comment20102012Other2012ME0106000105_610R01_W023Capisic PondwetlandCapisic Pond wetlandstations W-023 andW-224BenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Wetlands)5-A 4-A noneTMDLapproved orestablished byEPA (4A)9/27/12: Approval ofStatewide % ImperviousCover TMDL.ME0106000211_616R05_W043ThacherBrook(Biddeford)wetlandWetland station W043, upstream (south)of Rt 111, BiddefordBenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Wetlands)5-A 4-A noneTMDLapproved orestablished byEPA (4A)9/27/12: Approval ofStatewide % ImperviousCover TMDL.Table 8-8 Estuarine/Marine Waters Delisted to Another CategoryWaterbody IDAU NameLocationCauseCategoryReason forRemovalDelisting Comment20102012Other2012722-25BDMR Area 35-BPenobscotRiver Estuary(Reeds Brook toMarsh River)Winterport,Reeds Bk toMarsh RiverFishconsumption324-A(bacteria)Presence oflobster notlikelyInitially included in coastwide 5-D shellfishconsumption impairment due to lobster tomalleycontamination. Determination was not specific to thislocation. 1992 survey and 2011 DMR personalcommunication suggests occurrence of harvestablelobster unlikely in this segment.2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality ReportMaine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List178STATUS OFDELISTEDCATEGORY5WATERSTable 8-9 Status of Delisted Category 5 Rivers/StreamsThis table presents the listing history (2002–2012)of Category 5 assessment units (AUs) that were delisted over time. Bold fontindicates AU/Cause combinations that changed Category during this cycle.Category by Report Year54A4B32ADB AssessmentUnit #Water NameCauseDelistingReason / DateComments'04-‘08‘10'12ME0101000105_103R01Shields Branch ofBig Black REscherichia coliTMDL approved byEPA (4A) 9/28/2009Approval of Statewide BacteriaTMDL'02-‘08‘10'12ME0101000121_117RSt. John River atMadawaskaEscherichia coliTMDL approved byEPA (4A) 9/28/2009Approval of Statewide BacteriaTMDL‘02'04‘06-'12ME0101000303_124R01Dickey BrookNutrient/Eutrophication BiologicalIndicatorsTMDL approved byEPA (4A) 9/28/2006Submitted with Daigle Pond/CrossPond TMDL in September 2006.EPA approved TMDL 9/28/06‘02'04‘06-'12ME0101000303_124R01Dickey Brook Oxygen, DissolvedTMDL approved byEPA (4A) 9/28/2006'12ME0101000303_124R01Dickey BrookPeriphyton(Aufwuchs)IndicatorBioassessmentsTMDL approved byEPA (4A) 9/15/20065/23/12 New 5-A listing for AquaticLife Use due to algae (periphyton)non-attainment (2003 and 2009,biomonitoring station 688);covered under existing TMDL,causes delisted to Category 4A‘02'04‘06-'12ME0101000303_124R02Daigle BrookNutrient/Eutrophication BiologicalIndicatorsTMDL approved byEPA (4A) 9/28/2006Submitted with Daigle Pond/CrossPond TMDL in September 2006.EPA approved TMDL 9/28/06‘02'04‘06-'12ME0101000303_124R02Daigle Brook Oxygen, DissolvedTMDL approved byEPA (4A) 9/28/2006‘02 ‘04‘06-'12ME0101000412_140R01No. Br. PresqueIsle Streambetween Mapletonand Presque IsleDissolved oxygenState Determines waterquality standard isbeing met (Category 2)8/31/2006Removal of Mapleton POTWcomplete. 2004 biomonitoringshowed attainment of Class Abiocriteria and attains D.O. criteria atStation 11, 0.2 km downstream ofMapleton POTW2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality ReportMaine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List179Category by Report Year54A4B32ADB AssessmentUnit #Water NameCauseDelistingReason / DateComments’04-'08‘10'12ME0101000412_140R02Dudley Brook(Chapman)BenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Streams)TMDL approved orestablished by EPA(4A)EPA approved TMDL 4/26/2010 (forTot. Phos; Tot. Nitr. And Sediments)‘02‘06-'12ME0101000413_142R01Caribou StreamBenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Streams)Flaws in original listing(Category 3) 10/2006Administrative error, conflicting dataBiocriteria non-attainment isinconsistent; segment was 5A fornonattainment of biocriteria in 1994only. Subsequent samples showedattainment; requires re-sampling’02-‘12ME0101000413_145R01Little MadawaskaRiverPolychlorinatedbiphenylsOther point source ornonpoint sourcecontrols are expectedto meet water qualitystandards (Category4B) 3/15/2004Haz waste remediation project iscomplete (Superfund)--expected toattain standards by 2010. Needs resampling to confirm’02-‘12ME0101000413_145R02Greenlaw BrookPolychlorinatedbiphenylsOther point source ornonpoint sourcecontrols are expectedto meet water qualitystandards (Category4B) 20029/6/12 Corrected name, wasGreenlaw Stream. Haz wasteremediation project (Superfund)--expected to attain standards’04-‘08‘10'12ME0101000413_146R01Webster Brook Escherichia coliApplicable WQSattained; original basisfor listing was incorrectMonitoring for Statewide bacteriaTMDL indicates this water attainsbacteria standards’04-‘08‘10'12ME0101000501_149R01Prestile Streamabove dam in MarsHillBenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Streams)EPA approval of TMDL5/10/2010EPA approval of TMDL (5/10/10),delisted to Category 4-A(invertebrates, nutrients and DO).’04-‘08‘10'12ME0101000501_149R01Prestile Streamabove dam in MarsHillNutrient/Eutrophication BiologicalIndicatorsEPA approval of TMDL5/10/2010’04-‘08‘10'12ME0101000501_149R01Prestile Streamabove dam in MarsHillOxygen, dissolvedEPA approval of TMDL5/10/20102012 Maine Integrated Water Quality ReportMaine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List180Category by Report Year54A4B32ADB AssessmentUnit #Water NameCauseDelistingReason / DateComments'12’04-‘10ME0101000501_149R01Prestile Streamabove dam inMars HillPeriphyton(Aufwuchs)IndicatorBioassessmentsEPA approval ofTMDL 5/10/20103/29/2012: New 4-A listing foraquatic life use due to algae(periphyton) non-attainment (2003,2004 and 2009, biomonitoringstations 690 and 734) - impairmentcovered under approved TMDL.(4C)'02'04‘06-'12ME0102000103_201R02West Branch ofPenobscot R belowSeboomook LakeBenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Streams)State Determines waterquality standard isbeing met (Category 2)UAA approved by EPA on April 5,2005 (FERC# 2634, expiration date11/31/2064). Meets applicable waterquality standards.‘10'12’02-‘08ME0102000109_205R01West BranchPenobscot R mainstem, belowconfluence withMillinocket StrNutrient/Eutrophication BiologicalIndicatorsOther point source ornonpoint sourcecontrols are expectedto meet water qualitystandards (Category4B) 1/17/082011 permits providing nutrient limitsare expected to correct existingaquatic life use impairments.Expected to attain in 2016.‘10'12’02-‘08ME0102000109_205R01West BranchPenobscot R mainstem, belowconfluence withMillinocket StrOxygen, dissolvedOther point source ornonpoint sourcecontrols are expectedto meet water qualitystandards (Category4B) 1/17/082011 permits providing nutrient limitsare expected to correct existingaquatic life use impairments.Expected to attain in 2016.'02-‘08‘10'12ME0102000110_205R03Millinocket Stream(Millinocket)Escherichia coliTMDL approved byEPA (4A) 9/28/2009Approval of Statewide BacteriaTMDL'04-‘08‘10'12ME0102000402_219R_02Piscataquis Riverat Dover FoxcroftEscherichia coliTMDL approved byEPA (4A) 9/28/2009Approval of Statewide BacteriaTMDL'04-‘08‘10'12ME0102000403_215R_02Sebec River at Milo Escherichia coliTMDL approved byEPA (4A) 9/28/2009Approval of Statewide BacteriaTMDL‘02-'06‘08-'12ME0102000403_215R01Sebec River at Miloabove confluencewith Piscataquis RBenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Streams)Applicable WQSattained due torestoration activitiesPreviously listed in 5-A for biocriterianon-attainment based on 1985 data.This segment has been delisted:Resampling in 2006, at BiomonitoringStation 827, below the Milo Dam,shows attainment of Class Abiocriteria.2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality ReportMaine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List181Category by Report Year54A4B32ADB AssessmentUnit #Water NameCauseDelistingReason / DateComments‘04‘02'06-'12ME0102000502_220R_01MattanawcookStream (Lincoln)Escherichia coliState determines waterquality standard isbeing met (Category 2)CSO has been removed. Data frommultiple sampling events collected bythe Penobscot Indian Nation duringsummer 2004 for MattanawcookStream confirm attainment ofnumeric criteria for dissolved oxygenand bacteria. Segment is alsoCategory 3 listed for sedimentcontamination; possible fishconsumption impairment. Needssampling to confirm‘04‘02'06-'12ME0102000502_220R_01MattanawcookStream (Lincoln)Oxygen, dissolvedState determines waterquality standard isbeing met (Category 2)CSO has been removed. Data frommultiple sampling events collected bythe Penobscot Indian Nation duringsummer 2004 for MattanawcookStream confirms attainment ofnumeric criteria for dissolved oxygenand bacteria. Segment is alsoCategory 3 listed for sedimentcontamination; possible fishconsumption impairment.‘02'04‘06-'12ME0102000502_230RPenobscot R-(Mattawamkeag toCambolasse)BenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Streams)Flaws in original listingof this cause (Category2)Administrative error, no data tosupport impaired biocriteriaassessment. Erroneously listed forbenthic macroinvertebrates prior to2002 cycle.‘02-'10'12 ME0102000502_230RPenobscot R-(Mattawamkeag toCambolasse)Nutrient/Eutrophication BiologicalIndicatorsOther point source ornonpoint sourcecontrols are expectedto meet water qualitystandards (Category4B) May 2011‘02-'10'12 ME0102000502_230RPenobscot R-(Mattawamkeag toCambolasse)Oxygen,Dissolved2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality ReportMaine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List182Category by Report Year54A4B32ADB AssessmentUnit #Water NameCauseDelistingReason / DateComments‘02'04‘06-'12ME0102000502_231RPenobscot R, mainstem, fromCambolasse Str toPiscataquis RBenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Streams)Flaws in original listingof this cause (Category2) 12/6/2006Administrative error, no data tosupport impaired biocriteriaassessment. Erroneously listed forbenthic macroinvertebrates prior to2002 cycle; has attained applicablebiocriteria in 1992, 1993, 1994 and1995.‘02'04‘06-'12ME0102000502_231RPenobscot R, mainstem, fromCambolasse Str toPiscataquis RDioxin (including2,3,7,8-TCDD)Other point source ornonpoint sourcecontrols are expectedto meet water qualitystandards (Category4B) 8/1/2006Dioxin controls in place andmonitoring confirms improvement.Dioxin data from 2003 and 2005showed no difference in fish aboveand below Lincoln.‘02-'10‘12 ME0102000502_231RPenobscot R,main stem, fromCambolasse Strto Piscataquis RNutrient/Eutrophication BiologicalIndicatorsOther point source ornonpoint sourcecontrols are expectedto meet water qualitystandards (Category4B) May 20112011 permits providing nutrientlimits are expected to correctexisting aquatic life useimpairments. Expected to attain in2016.‘02-'10‘12 ME0102000502_231RPenobscot R,main stem, fromCambolasse Strto Piscataquis ROxygen,Dissolved‘04‘06-'12‘02ME0102000503_221R01Cold Stream(Enfield)downstream ofhatcheryBenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Streams)Other point source ornonpoint sourcecontrols are expectedto meet water qualitystandards (Category4B) 6/20/20069/4/12: hatchery permit renewed12/7/11; macroinvertebrates metClass A biocriteria in 2006 and 2011(station S-484).'02-‘08‘10'12ME0102000506_222R01Costigan Str(Costigan)Escherichia coliTMDL approved byEPA (4A) 9/28/2009Approval of Statewide BacteriaTMDL‘04‘06-'10ME0102000506_232R Penobscot RDioxin (including2,3,7,8-TCDD)Other point source ornonpoint sourcecontrols are expectedto meet water qualitystandards (Category4B) 8/1/2006Dioxin controls in place.2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality ReportMaine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List183Category by Report Year54A4B32ADB AssessmentUnit #Water NameCauseDelistingReason / DateComments'10 ‘12 ME0102000506_232R Penobscot RNutrient/Eutrophication BiologicalIndicatorsOtherpoint source ornonpoint sourcecontrols are expectedto meet water qualitystandards (Category4B) May 20112011 permits providing nutrientlimits are expected to correctexisting aquatic life useimpairments. Expected to attain in2016.'10 12 ME0102000506_232R Penobscot ROxygen,Dissolved'02-‘08‘10'12ME0102000509_226R01Otter Stream,MilfordEscherichia coliTMDL approved byEPA (4A) 9/28/2009Approval of Statewide BacteriaTMDL'02-‘08‘10 '12ME0102000509_226R02Boynton Brook Escherichia coliTMDL approved byEPA (4A) 9/28/2009Delisted to Category 2 due tonewer monitoring data showingattainment of bacteria standards.'04-'06'08-'12ME0102000509_233R_01Penobscot RDioxin (including2,3,7,8-TCDD)Other point source ornonpoint sourcecontrols are expectedto meet water qualitystandards (Category4B) 2006Dioxin controls in place.'10 ‘12ME0102000509_233R_01Penobscot RNutrient/Eutrophication BiologicalIndicatorsOther point source ornonpoint sourcecontrols are expectedto meet water qualitystandards (Category4B) May 20112011 permits providing nutrientlimits are expected to correctexisting aquatic life useimpairments. Expected to attain in2016.'10 ‘12ME0102000509_233R_01Penobscot ROxygen,Dissolved'02-‘08‘10'12ME0102000509_233R_02Penobscot River atOronoEscherichia coliTMDL approved byEPA (4A) 9/28/2009Approval of Statewide BacteriaTMDL'02-‘08‘10'12ME0102000509_233R_03Penobscot River atOld Town-MilfordEscherichia coliTMDL approved byEPA (4A) 9/28/2009Approval of Statewide BacteriaTMDL'02-‘08‘10'12ME0102000510_224R02KenduskeagStreamEscherichia coliApplicable WQSattained; original basisfor listing was incorrect‘02-'06'08-'12ME0102000510_224R04Birch Stream(Bangor)BenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Streams)TMDL approved byEPA (4A) 9/12/07EPA approved TMDL 9/12/20072012 Maine Integrated Water Quality ReportMaine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List184Category by Report Year54A4B32ADB AssessmentUnit #Water NameCauseDelistingReason / DateComments'12ME0102000510_224R04Birch Stream(Bangor)Periphyton(Aufwuchs)IndicatorBioassessmentsTMDLapproved byEPA (4A)9/12/073/20/12 New 5A listing for AquaticLife Use due to algae (periphyton)non-attainment (2001, 2003 and2006, biomonitoring station 691);covered under existing TMDL,causes delisted to Category 4A‘02-'10'12ME0102000510_224R05Capehart(Pushaw) Brook(Bangor)HabitatAssessment(Streams)TMDL approved orestablished by EPA(4A) 9/27/12Approval of Statewide %Impervious Cover TMDL.‘02-'10'12ME0102000510_224R06Arctic Brook (nearValley Ave,Bangor)Benthic-MacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Streams)TMDL approved orestablished by EPA(4A) 9/27/12Approval of Statewide %Impervious Cover TMDL.‘06-'10'12ME0102000510_224R06Arctic Brook (nearValley Ave,Bangor)HabitatAssessment(Streams)‘06-'10'12ME0102000511_225R01_02Shaw Brook(Bangor,Hampden)Benthic-MacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Streams)TMDL approved orestablished by EPA(4A) 9/27/12Approval of Statewide %Impervious Cover TMDL.‘02-'10'12ME0102000511_225R01_02Shaw Brook(Bangor,Hampden)HabitatAssessment(Streams)'12ME0102000511_225R01_02Shaw Brook(Bangor,Hampden)Periphyton(Aufwuchs)IndicatorBioassessments‘04-'10'12ME0102000511_225R02Sucker Brook(Hampden)(formerly'Unnamed St.-Hampden')BenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Streams)TMDL approved orestablished by EPA(4A) 9/27/12Approval of Statewide %Impervious Cover TMDL.‘06-'10'12ME0102000511_225R02Sucker Brook(Hampden)(formerly'Unnamed St.-Hampden')Oxygen,Dissolved2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality ReportMaine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List185Category by Report Year54A4B32ADB AssessmentUnit #Water NameCauseDelistingReason / DateComments‘10'12’02-‘08ME0102000512_229RPenobscot R mainstem, aboveMattawamkeag R.Nutrient/Eutrophication BiologicalIndicatorsOther point source ornonpoint sourcecontrols are expectedto meet water qualitystandards (Category4B) May 20112011 permits providing nutrient limitsare expected to correct existingaquatic life use impairments.Expected to attain in 2016.‘10'12’02-‘08ME0102000512_229RPenobscot R mainstem, aboveMattawamkeag R.Oxygen, dissolved'02-‘08‘10'12ME0102000513_234R Penobscot River EscherichiacoliTMDL approved byEPA (4A) 9/28/2009Approval of Statewide BacteriaTMDL'02-'12ME0102000513_234R02PenobscotDioxin (including2,3,7,8-TCDD)Other point source ornonpoint sourcecontrols are expectedto meet water qualitystandards (Category4B)Dioxin controls in place.'10 ‘12ME0102000513_234R02PenobscotNutrient/Eutrophication BiologicalIndicatorsOther pointsource ornonpoint sourcecontrols are expectedto meet water qualitystandards (Category4B) May 20112011 permits providing nutrientlimits are expected to correctexisting aquatic life useimpairments. Expected to attain in2016.'10 ‘12ME0102000513_234R02PenobscotOxygen,dissolved‘02'04‘06-'12ME0103000304_313R01Mill Stream(Embden)BenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Streams)Other point source ornonpoint sourcecontrols are expectedto meet water qualitystandards (Category4B) 6/20/2006Hatchery permit issued 1/30/2006;exp. Date 1/30/2011; other pollutioncontrols are in place, attainmentexpected by 2009;‘04‘06-'12‘02ME0103000305_315R_02Unnamed Streamtrib to Sandy R(Avon-DunhamHatchery)BenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Streams)Other point source ornonpoint sourcecontrols are expectedto meet water qualitystandards (Category4B) 6/20/2006Hatchery permit issued 10/18/2005;expiration date 10/18/10; hatchery isnow closed; other pollution controlsare in place, attainment expected by2008;'02-‘08‘10'12ME0103000306_320R02Currier Brook Escherichia coliTMDL approved byEPA (4A) 9/28/2009Approval of Statewide BacteriaTMDL'02-‘08‘10'12ME0103000306_320R03Whitten Brook(Skowhegan)Escherichia coliTMDL approved byEPA (4A) 9/28/2009Approval of Statewide BacteriaTMDL2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality ReportMaine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List186Category by Report Year54A4B32ADB AssessmentUnit #Water NameCauseDelistingReason / DateComments‘06-'10'12ME0103000306_320R03Whitten Brook(Skowhegan)BenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Streams)TMDL approved orestablished by EPA(4A) 9/27/12Approval of Statewide %Impervious Cover TMDL.‘04-'10'12ME0103000306_320R03Whitten Brook(Skowhegan)HabitatAssessment(Streams)'02-‘08‘10'12ME0103000306_338R_02Kennebec River atSkowhegan, CSOEscherichia coliTMDL approved byEPA (4A) 9/28/2009Approval of Statewide BacteriaTMDL'02-‘08‘10'12ME0103000306_339R_03Kennebec River,near FairfieldEscherichia coliTMDL approved byEPA (4A) 9/28/2009‘02-'12ME0103000308_325R01East BranchSebasticook RiverCorundel Pd toSebasticook L(Corinna)BenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Streams)Other point source ornonpoint sourcecontrols are expectedto meet water qualitystandards (Category4B) 3/15/2004Haz waste remediation project(Superfund). CSO removal. Newwastewater permit, removal to landtreatment in 2004. Segment attainsaquatic life criteria (2003 data).Expected to attain by 2008.‘02-'12ME0103000308_325R01East BranchSebasticook River,Corundel Pd toSebasticook L(Corinna)Benzene‘06-'12ME0103000308_331R01Martin Stream(Dixmont)Ammonia (Unionized)Other point source ornonpoint sourcecontrols are expectedto meet water qualitystandards (Category4B) 7/13/2006CAFO permit issued 8/15/06; otherpollution controls in place, expectedto attain standards‘06-'12ME0103000308_331R01Martin Stream(Dixmont)BenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Streams)'06-‘08‘10'12ME0103000309_332R Sebasticook River Escherichia coliTMDL approved byEPA (4A) 9/28/2009Approval of Statewide BacteriaTMDL‘04-'10'12 ME0103000309_332R Sebasticook RiverNutrient/Eutrophication BiologicalIndicatorsApplicable WQSattained; due torestoration activities10/2/12 Nutrient/EutrophicationBiological Indicators cause ofAquatic Life Use impairmentdelisted to Category 2 due to newdata showing removal of cause ofimpairment.2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality ReportMaine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List187Category by Report Year54A4B32ADB AssessmentUnit #Water NameCauseDelistingReason / DateComments(4C)’02-’08‘10'12ME0103000309_332R01Sebasticook River(Halifaximpoundment)BenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Streams)Applicable WQSattained due torestoration activitiesBiomonitoring following removal ofHalifax Dam confirms attainment ofbiocriteria‘02'04‘06-'12ME0103000310_322R01Fish Brook(Fairfield)BenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Streams)EPA approval of TMDL(Category 4A)8/30/2005EPA approved TMDL 8/30/2005‘02'04‘06-'12ME0103000310_322R01Fish Brook(Fairfield)Oxygen, Dissolved'02-‘08‘10'12ME0103000312_333R02Whitney Brook(Augusta)Escherichia coliTMDL approved byEPA (4A) 9/28/2009Approval of Statewide BacteriaTMDL'10 '12ME0103000312_333R02Whitney Brook(Augusta)BenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Streams)TMDL approved orestablished by EPA(4A) 9/27/12Approval of Statewide %Impervious Cover TMDL.‘10 '12ME0103000312_333R02Whitney Brook(Augusta)Periphyton(Aufwuchs)IndicatorBioassessments‘02-'10'12ME0103000312_333R03Kennedy Brook(Augusta)BenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Streams)TMDL approved orestablished by EPA(4A) 9/27/12Approval of Statewide %Impervious Cover TMDL.'12ME0103000312_333R03Kennedy Brook(Augusta)Periphyton(Aufwuchs)IndicatorBioassessments‘06-'10'12ME0103000312_333R04Unnamedtributary to BondBrookBenthic-MacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Streams)TMDL approved orestablished by EPA(4A) 9/27/12Approval of Statewide %Impervious Cover TMDL.‘04-'10'12ME0103000312_333R04Unnamedtributary to BondBrookHabitatAssessment(Streams)2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality ReportMaine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List188Category by Report Year54A4B32ADB AssessmentUnit #Water NameCauseDelistingReason / DateComments'12ME0103000312_333R04Unnamedtributary to BondBrookPeriphyton(Aufwuchs)IndicatorBioassessments'06-‘08‘10'12ME0103000312_339R_02Kennebec River atWaterville, CSOEscherichia coliTMDL approved byEPA (4A) 9/28/2009Approval of Statewide BacteriaTMDL'02-‘08‘10'12ME0103000312_340R_02Kennebec River atAugusta, includingRiggs Brook- CSOEscherichia coliTMDL approved byEPA (4A) 9/28/2009Approval of Statewide BacteriaTMDL'02-‘08‘10'12ME0103000312_340R_03Kennebec River atHallowell- CSOEscherichia coliTMDL approved byEPA (4A) 9/28/2009Approval of Statewide BacteriaTMDL'02-‘08‘10'12ME0103000312_340R_04Kennebec River atGardiner-RandolphEscherichia coliTMDL approved byEPA (4A) 9/28/2009Approval of Statewide BacteriaTMDL‘04 ‘06‘08-'12ME0104000206_423R01Androscoggin R,main stem,LivermoreimpoundmentBenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Streams)Applicable WQSattained due torestoration activitiesEPA approved TMDL 7/18/2005(TMDL #11594).Attained Class C biocriteria in 2003,and attained Class B biocriteria in2004, 2005 and 2006. Benthicinvertebrate and TSS causes delistedto 'WQS attainment'.Also 4B listed for dioxin and 5D listedfor legacy PCB contamination‘04 ‘06‘08-'12ME0104000206_423R01Androscoggin R,main stem,LivermoreimpoundmentTotal SuspendedSolidsApplicable WQSattained due torestoration activities‘02-'12ME0104000206_423R01Androscoggin R,main stem,LivermoreimpoundmentDioxin (including2,3,7,8-TCDD)Other point source ornonpoint sourcecontrols are expectedto meet water qualitystandards (Category4B) 3/15/2004Dioxin controls in place.Also 5D listed for legacy PCBcontamination.‘02-'12ME0104000207_412R02House/Lively Brook Nitrogen (Total)Other point source ornonpoint sourcecontrols are expectedto meet water qualitystandards (Category4B) 3/15/2004Waste (manure) removal (Agric NPS)by Consent Order and Site Permitexpected to attain standards; needsadditional monitoring to confirmattainment.'04-‘08‘10'12ME0104000208_413R01Jepson Brook(Lewiston)Escherichia coliTMDL approved byEPA (4A) 9/28/2009Approval of Statewide BacteriaTMDL2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality ReportMaine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List189Category by Report Year54A4B32ADB AssessmentUnit #Water NameCauseDelistingReason / DateComments'02-‘08‘10'12ME0104000208_413R03Stetson Brook(Lewiston)Escherichia coliTMDL approved byEPA (4A) 9/28/2009Approval of Statewide BacteriaTMDL'02-‘08‘10'12ME0104000208_413R04Logan Brook,AuburnEscherichia coliTMDL approved byEPA (4A) 9/28/2009Approval of Statewide BacteriaTMDL‘04-'10'12ME0104000208_413R04Logan Brook,AuburnHabitatAssessment(Streams)TMDL approved orestablished by EPA(4A) 9/27/12Approval of Statewide %Impervious Cover TMDL.‘02-'10'12ME0104000208_413R04Logan Brook,AuburnOxygen,Dissolved'02-‘08‘10'12ME0104000208_413R07Gully Brook(Auburn)Escherichia coliTMDL approved byEPA (4A) 9/28/2009‘04‘06-'12‘02ME0104000208_413R08Bobbin Mill Brook(Lake AuburnOutlet, Auburn)Benthic-MacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Streams)Flaws in original listing(Category 3) 3/9/056/7/12: Conflicting biomonitoringresults (at station S-357):macroinvertebrates attained onlyClass C in 1998 (likely due to naturalconditions) but met Class B in 2003and 2008; algae (periphyton) showednon-attainment in 2008. Resamplingneeded to confirm whetherimpairment exists.‘02-'12ME0104000208_424R_01Androscoggin R,main stem,upstream of theGulf Island DamDioxin (including2,3,7,8-TCDD)Other point source ornonpoint sourcecontrols are expectedto meet water qualitystandards (Category4B) 3/15/2004Dioxin controls in place‘04‘06-'10'12ME0104000208_424R_01Androscoggin R,main stem,upstream of theGulf Island DamAlgae bloomsOther point source ornonpoint sourcecontrols are expectedto meet water qualitystandards (Category4B) December 20122012 permits are expected tocorrect existing aquatic life useimpairments. Expected to attain in2017.‘04‘06-'10'12ME0104000208_424R_01Androscoggin R,main stem,upstream of theGulf Island DamBOD, Biochemicaloxygen demand2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality ReportMaine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List190Category by Report Year54A4B32ADB AssessmentUnit #Water NameCauseDelistingReason / DateComments‘04‘06-'10'12ME0104000208_424R_01Androscoggin R,main stem,upstream of theGulf Island DamOxygen,Dissolved‘04‘06-'10'12ME0104000208_424R_01Androscoggin R,main stem,upstream of theGulf Island DamPhosphorus‘04‘06-'10'12ME0104000208_424R_01Androscoggin R,main stem,upstream of theGulf Island DamTotal suspendedsolids'02-‘08‘10'12ME0104000209_417R_02Little AndroscogginRiver at MechanicFallsEscherichia coliTMDL approved byEPA (4A) 9/28/2009Approval of Statewide BacteriaTMDL'04-'10'12ME0104000210_418R01Sabattus Riverbetween SabattusandAndroscoggin RBenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Streams)Applicable WQSattained; originalbasis for listing wasincorrectAquatic life use impairment wasdelisted to Category 2 due toclassification attainment at 3biomonitoring stations (S-359, S629, S-630) on 2-3 occasions.'02-‘08‘10'12ME0104000210_418R02No Name Brook(Lewiston)Escherichia coliTMDL approved byEPA (4A) 9/28/2009Approval of Statewide BacteriaTMDL‘02-'10'12ME0104000210_419R01Unnamed Brook(Biomon Sta. 347-Lisbon Falls at Rt196)HabitatAssessment(Streams)TMDL approved orestablished by EPA(4A) 9/27/12Approval of Statewide %Impervious Cover TMDL.'06-‘08‘10'12ME0104000210_419R02Hart Brook(Lewiston) A.K.ADill Brook andincluding Goff BkEscherichia coliTMDL approved byEPA (4A) 9/28/2009Approval of Statewide BacteriaTMDL‘06-'10'12ME0104000210_419R02Hart Brook(Lewiston) A.K.ADill Brook andincluding Goff BkBenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Streams)TMDL approved orestablished by EPA(4A) 9/27/12Approval of Statewide %Impervious Cover TMDL.2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality ReportMaine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List191Category by Report Year54A4B32ADB AssessmentUnit #Water NameCauseDelistingReason / DateComments‘02-'10'12ME0104000210_419R02HartBrook(Lewiston) A.K.ADill Brook andincluding Goff BkHabitatAssessment(Streams)‘06-'10'12ME0104000210_419R02Hart Brook(Lewiston) A.K.ADill Brook andincluding Goff BkOxygen,Dissolved'12ME0104000210_419R02Hart Brook(Lewiston) A.K.ADill Brook andincluding Goff BkPeriphyton(Aufwuchs)IndicatorBioassessments'10 '12ME0104000210_420R01Unnamedtributary(Brunswick 2) toAndroscoggin RBenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Streams)TMDL approved orestablished by EPA(4A) 9/27/12Approval of Statewide %Impervious Cover TMDL.‘04-'10'12ME0104000210_420R01Unnamedtributary(Brunswick 2) toAndroscoggin RHabitatAssessment(Streams)'10 '12ME0104000210_420R02Unnamedtributary(Brunswick 3) toAndroscoggin RBenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Streams)TMDL approved orestablished by EPA(4A) 9/27/12Approval of Statewide %Impervious Cover TMDL.‘04-'10'12ME0104000210_420R02Unnamedtributary(Brunswick 3) toAndroscoggin RHabitatAssessment(Streams)'10 '12ME0104000210_420R03Unnamedtributary(Brunswick 4) toAndroscoggin RBenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Streams)TMDL approved orestablished by EPA(4A) 9/27/12Approval of Statewide %Impervious Cover TMDL.‘04-'10'12ME0104000210_420R03Unnamedtributary(Brunswick 4) toAndroscoggin RHabitatAssessment(Streams)2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality ReportMaine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List192Category by Report Year54A4B32ADB AssessmentUnit #Water NameCauseDelistingReason / DateComments'12ME0104000210_420R04Unnamedtributary(Topsham 2) toAndroscoggin RBenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Streams)TMDL approved orestablished by EPA(4A) 9/27/12Approval of Statewide %Impervious Cover TMDL.‘04-'10'12ME0104000210_420R04Unnamedtributary(Topsham 2) toAndroscoggin RHabitatAssessment(Streams)'10 '12ME0104000210_420R05Unnamedtributary(Topsham 4) toAndroscogginBenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Streams)TMDL approved orestablished by EPA(4A) 9/27/12Approval of Statewide %Impervious Cover TMDL.'06-‘08‘10'12ME0104000210_425R_02AndroscogginRiver, LewistonAuburnEscherichia coliTMDL approved byEPA (4A) 9/28/2009Approval of Statewide BacteriaTMDL‘08-'10‘10'12ME0105000108_505R_02St. Croix R., CalaisCSOEscherichia coliTMDL approved byEPA (4A) 9/28/2009Approval of Statewide BacteriaTMDL'02-'12ME0105000201_507R01Dennys RiverPolychlorinatedbiphenylsOther point source ornonpoint sourcecontrols are expectedto meet water qualitystandards (Category4B) 9/5/2006Haz waste remediation project(Superfund)--expected to attainstandards by 2010.‘08-'10'12ME0105000213_514R_01Card Brook(Ellsworth)BenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Streams)TMDL approved orestablished by EPA(4A) 9/27/12Approval of Statewide %Impervious Cover TMDL.‘04-'10'12ME0105000213_514R_01Card Brook(Ellsworth)Oxygen,Dissolved‘02'04‘06-'12ME0105000217_520R01Carleton Stream(Blue Hill)BenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Streams)EPA approval of TMDL(Category 4A)10/7/2004EPA approved TMDL 10/7/2004‘02'04‘06-'12ME0105000217_520R01Carleton Stream(Blue Hill)Iron'02-‘08‘10'12ME0105000220_522R01_01Megunticook River(Camden)Escherichia coliTMDL approved byEPA (4A) 9/28/2009Approval of Statewide BacteriaTMDL2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality ReportMaine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List193Category by Report Year54A4B32ADB AssessmentUnit #Water NameCauseDelistingReason / DateComments'02-‘08‘10'12ME0105000220_522R02_01Rock Brook(formerly'Unnamed Brook')(Camden)Escherichia coliTMDL approved byEPA (4A) 9/28/20095/24/12 Delistedto Category 2 dueto newer monitoring data showingattainment of bacteria standards.7/28/2010 Stream name updatedfrom 'Unnamed Brook' Camden toRock Brook.’04-‘08‘10'12ME0105000220_522R03Unnamed Brook(Rockport)Escherichia coliApplicable WQSattained; original basisfor listing was incorrectMonitoring for Statewide bacteriaTMDL indicates this water attainsbacteria standards'02-‘08‘10'12ME0105000220_522R04Unnamed Brook(Rockland)Escherichia coliTMDL approved byEPA (4A) 9/28/200911/7/12: City of Rockland performedremedial sewer work in 2012 toaddress bacteria contamination;more work is likely needed in thefuture to successfully address theentire watershed.'02-‘08‘10'12ME0105000305_528R01Sheepscot River atAlnaEscherichia coliTMDL approved byEPA (4A) 9/28/2009Approval of Statewide BacteriaTMDL10-'12ME0105000305_528R02West BranchSheepscot RiverEscherichia coli’04’06‘08‘10'12ME0105000305_528R02West BranchSheepscot RiverOxygen, DissolvedApplicable WQSattained;TMDL analysis of additionalmonitoring data demonstrates thatsegment attains dissolved oxygenstandards.‘10'12’04’06‘08ME0105000305_528R02West BranchSheepscot RiverBenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Streams)Insufficient informationto determine if WQSattainedCategory 3 due to inconsistentbiocriteria attainment for benthicinvertebrates and algae‘12 ‘10’04’06‘08ME0105000305_528R02West BranchSheepscot RiverPeriphyton(Aufwuchs)IndicatorBioassessments'02-‘08‘10'12ME0105000305_528R03Dyer River belowRt 215Escherichia coliTMDL approved byEPA (4A) 9/28/2009Approval of Statewide BacteriaTMDL2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality ReportMaine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List194Category by Report Year54A4B32ADB AssessmentUnit #Water NameCauseDelistingReason / DateComments‘02'04‘06-'12ME0105000305_528R08_02Sheepscot Riverbelow Sheepscot LOxygen, DissolvedOther point source ornonpoint sourcecontrols are expectedto meet water qualitystandards (Category4B) 6/20/20068/6/12: hatchery permit renewed12/19/11, expiration date 12/19/2016.Expected to attain standards by2016.‘02'04‘06-'12ME0106000101_605R01Mile Brook (Casco)BenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Streams)Other point source ornonpoint sourcecontrols are expectedto meet water qualitystandards (Category4B) 6/20/20066/8/12: Hatchery permit re-issued5/2/12, expiration date 5/1/17.Macroinvertebrates only attainedClass C criteria in 2010. Facilityupgrades occurred in the fall of 2011.‘02'04‘06-'12ME0106000102_603R05Royal River,segment belowCollyer BkDrinking watertrichloroethyleneState Determines waterquality standard isbeing met (Category 2)8/31/2006Per CERCLA hazardous waste sitemanager: June 2006 surface watermonitoring determined that thetrichloroethylene standards and allother water quality criteria are beingmet in the Royal River at sites downgradient of the contaminated site.'02-‘08‘10'12ME0106000103_607R03Colley WrightBrook (Windham)Escherichia coliTMDL approved byEPA (4A) 9/28/2009Approval of Statewide BacteriaTMDL’04-‘08‘10'12ME0106000103_607R04Piscataqua River(Falmouth)Escherichia coliApplicable WQSattained; original basisfor listing was incorrectMonitoring for Statewide bacteriaTMDL indicates this water attainsbacteria standards'02-‘08‘10'12ME0106000103_607R04Piscataqua River(Falmouth)Escherichia coliApplicable WQSattained; original basisfor listing was incorrect'02-‘08‘10'12ME0106000103_607R06Hobbs Brook(Cumberland)Escherichia coliTMDL approved byEPA (4A) 9/28/2009Approval of Statewide BacteriaTMDL'02-‘08‘10'12ME0106000103_607R07Inkhorn Brook(Westbrook)Escherichia coliTMDL approved byEPA (4A) 9/28/2009Approval of Statewide BacteriaTMDL'02-‘08‘10'12ME0106000103_607R08Mosher Brook(Gorham)Escherichia coliTMDL approved byEPA (4A) 9/28/2009Approval of Statewide BacteriaTMDL'02-‘08‘10'12ME0106000103_607R09Otter Brook(Windham)Escherichia coliTMDL approved byEPA (4A) 9/28/2009Approval of Statewide BacteriaTMDL'02-‘08‘10'12ME0106000103_607R11Nason Brook(Gorham)Escherichia coliTMDL approved byEPA (4A) 9/28/2009Approval of Statewide BacteriaTMDL2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality ReportMaine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List195Category by Report Year54A4B32ADB AssessmentUnit #Water NameCauseDelistingReason / DateComments'06-‘08‘10'12ME0106000103_607R12Pleasant River(Windham)Escherichia coliTMDL approved byEPA (4A) 9/28/2009Approval of Statewide BacteriaTMDL‘02'04‘06-'12ME0106000103_609R_01Presumpscot R,main stem, belowSacarappa DamBOD, Biochemicaloxygen demand State Determines waterquality standard isbeing met (Category 2)8/31/2006Sources removed, pulping operationclosed and Smelt Hill Dam has beenbreached. Bioassessment (2005)shows attainment of Class Cdissolved oxygen and biocriteria(Class B biocriteria just above SmeltHill dam site).‘02'04‘06-'12ME0106000103_609R_01Presumpscot R,main stem, belowSacarappa DamTotal SuspendedSolids (TSS)'02-‘08‘10'12ME0106000103_609R_02Presumpscot Riverat WestbrookEscherichia coliTMDL approved byEPA (4A) 9/28/2009Approval of Statewide BacteriaTMDL‘04-'10'12ME0106000104_611R02Phillips Brook(Scarborough)HabitatAssessment(Streams)TMDL approved orestablished by EPA(4A) 9/27/12Approval of Statewide %Impervious Cover TMDL.'12ME0106000104_611R02Phillips Brook(Scarborough)Oxygen,Dissolved‘06-'10'12ME0106000105_607R11_01Nasons Brook(Portland), trib toFore RiverBenthic-MacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Streams)TMDL approved orestablished by EPA(4A) 9/27/12Approval of Statewide %Impervious Cover TMDL.'12ME0106000105_607R11_01Nasons Brook(Portland), trib toFore RiverOxygen,Dissolved'12ME0106000105_607R11_01Nasons Brook(Portland), trib toFore RiverPeriphyton(Aufwuchs)IndicatorBioassessments‘06-'10'12ME0106000105_607R11_02Nasons Brook(Westbrook), tribto Fore RiverBenthic-MacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Streams)TMDL approved orestablished by EPA(4A) 9/27/12Approval of Statewide %Impervious Cover TMDL.'12ME0106000105_607R11_02Nasons Brook(Westbrook), tribto Fore RiverOxygen,Dissolved2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality ReportMaine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List196Category by Report Year54A4B32ADB AssessmentUnit #Water NameCauseDelistingReason / DateComments'12ME0106000105_607R11_02Nasons Brook(Westbrook), tribto Fore RiverPeriphyton(Aufwuchs)IndicatorBioassessments‘06-'10'12ME0106000105_609R01Dole Brook(formerly knownas 'UnnamedStream- Portland3')BenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Streams)TMDL approved orestablished by EPA(4A) 9/27/12Approval of Statewide %Impervious Cover TMDL.‘06-'10'12ME0106000105_610R01Capisic BrookBenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Streams)TMDL approved orestablished by EPA(4A) 9/27/12Approval of Statewide %Impervious Cover TMDL.‘02-'10'12ME0106000105_610R01Capisic BrookHabitatAssessment(Streams)'12ME0106000105_610R01Capisic BrookPeriphyton(Aufwuchs)IndicatorBioassessments‘02-'08‘10'12ME0106000105_610R03Long Creek (SouthPortland)BenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Streams)Other enforceablecontrols are in place6/9, 2010. Expected toattain: 202010/15/12: Watershed restorationprocess in third year now.Long Creek was moved to Category4-B due to Stormwater GeneralPermit, MEPDES MEG190000(November 6, 2009).‘02-'08‘10'12ME0106000105_610R03Long Creek (SouthPortland)HabitatAssessment(Streams)‘02-‘06‘08-'12ME0106000105_610R05Trout Brook (So.Portland)BenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Streams)EPA approval of TMDL(Category 4A)10/25/2007EPA approved TMDL 10/25/2007(under bundled urban streamproject;)‘06-'10'12ME0106000105_610R06Kimball BrookBenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Streams)TMDL approved orestablished by EPA(4A) 9/27/12Approval of Statewide %Impervious Cover TMDL.2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality ReportMaine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List197Category by Report Year54A4B32ADB AssessmentUnit #Water NameCauseDelistingReason / DateComments‘02-'10'12ME0106000105_610R06Kimball BrookHabitatAssessment(Streams)‘02-'10'12ME0106000105_610R07Red Brook(Scarborough, SPortland)HabitatAssessment(Streams)TMDL approved orestablished by EPA(4A) 9/27/12Approval of Statewide %Impervious Cover TMDL.‘02-‘06‘08-'12ME0106000105_610R09Barberry CrBenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Streams)EPA approval of TMDL(Category 4A)6/21/2007EPA approved TMDL 6/21/2007(under bundled urban streamproject.)‘02-‘06‘08-'12ME0106000105_610R09Barberry CrHabitatAssessment(Streams)EPA approval of TMDL(Category 4A)6/21/2007EPA approved TMDL 6/21/2007(under bundled urban streamproject.)'02-‘08‘10'12ME0106000106_602R01Frost Gully Brook Escherichia coliTMDL approved byEPA (4A) 9/28/2009‘04-'10'12ME0106000106_602R01Frost Gully BrookBenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Streams)TMDL approved orestablished by EPA(4A) 9/27/12Approval of Statewide %Impervious Cover TMDL.‘04-'10'12ME0106000106_602R01Frost Gully BrookHabitatAssessment(Streams)'12ME0106000106_602R02Mare Brook(Brunswick) andselectedtributariesBenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Streams)TMDL approved orestablished by EPA(4A) 9/27/12Approval of Statewide %Impervious Cover TMDL.‘02-'10'12ME0106000106_602R02Mare Brook(Brunswick) andselectedtributariesHabitatAssessment(Streams)'10 '12ME0106000106_602R03Concord Gully(Freeport)BenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Streams)TMDL approved orestablished by EPA(4A) 9/27/12Approval of Statewide %Impervious Cover TMDL.‘04-'10'12ME0106000106_602R03Concord Gully(Freeport)HabitatAssessment(Streams)2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality ReportMaine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List198Category by Report Year54A4B32ADB AssessmentUnit #Water NameCauseDelistingReason / DateComments'10 '12ME0106000106_602R03Concord Gully(Freeport)Oxygen,Dissolved'12ME0106000106_602R03Concord Gully(Freeport)Periphyton(Aufwuchs)IndicatorBioassessments‘04'06-'12‘02ME0106000106_607R12Norton Brook(Falmouth)BenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Streams)Flaws in original listingof this cause (Category3) 10/2006Administrative error, conflicting data.More data required to supportimpaired assessment. Nonattainment of biocriteria in 2002 maybe due to natural habitat effects;needs resampling'12ME0106000106_612R01_01Goosefare Brookbelow I-95BenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Streams)TMDL approved orestablished by EPA(4A) 9/27/12Approval of Statewide %Impervious Cover TMDL.‘02'04-'12ME0106000106_612R01_01Goosefare BrookCd, Cr, Cu, Fe, Pd,Ni, ZnEPA approval of TMDL(Category 4A)9/29/2003EPA approved TMDL 9/29/2003;name changed in 2012 - added'below I-95''02-‘08‘10'12ME0106000106_612R01_02Bear Brook, SacoCSOEscherichia coliTMDL approved byEPA (4A) 9/28/2009Approval of Statewide BacteriaTMDL'02-‘08‘10'12ME0106000106_616R04Bear Bk Escherichia coliTMDL approved byEPA (4A) 9/28/2009Approval of Statewide BacteriaTMDL’04-‘08‘10'12ME0106000204_618R01Saco R., Fryeburg Escherichia coliApplicable WQSattained; original basisfor listing was incorrectMonitoring for Statewide bacteriaTMDL indicates this water attainsbacteria standards’04’06‘08‘10'12ME0106000209_614R01Ossippee R Escherichia coliApplicable WQSattained; original basisfor listing was incorrectMonitoring for Statewide bacteriaTMDL indicates this water attainsbacteria standards'02-‘08‘10'12ME0106000211_616R02Tappan Bk Escherichia coliTMDL approved byEPA (4A) 9/28/2009Approval of Statewide BacteriaTMDL'02-‘08‘10'12ME0106000211_616R03Sawyer Bk Escherichia coliTMDL approved byEPA (4A) 9/28/2009Approval of Statewide BacteriaTMDL‘06-'10'12ME0106000211_616R05Thacher Bk(Biddeford)BenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Streams)TMDL approved orestablished by EPA(4A) 9/27/12Approval of Statewide %Impervious Cover TMDL.2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality ReportMaine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List199Category by Report Year54A4B32ADB AssessmentUnit #Water NameCauseDelistingReason / DateComments'02-‘08‘10'12ME0106000211_616R05Thatcher Bk(Biddeford)Escherichia coliTMDL approved byEPA (4A) 9/28/2009Approval of Statewide BacteriaTMDL'02-‘08‘10'12ME0106000211_616R06Swan Pond Brookat South Street(Biddeford)Escherichia coliTMDL approved byEPA (4A) 9/28/2009Approval of Statewide BacteriaTMDL'06-‘08‘10'12ME0106000211_619R01Saco River atBiddeford-SacoEscherichia coliTMDL approved byEPA (4A) 9/28/2009Approval of Statewide BacteriaTMDL'02-‘08‘10'12ME0106000301_622R01Kennebunk River Escherichia coliTMDL approved byEPA (4A) 9/28/2009Approval of Statewide BacteriaTMDL’06‘08‘10'12ME0106000301_622R02Lord's Brook(Lyman)BOD, Biochemicaloxygen demandTMDL Alternative Court-ordered controls in place’06‘08‘10'12ME0106000301_622R02Lord's Brook(Lyman)Nutrient/Eutrophication BiologicalIndicators’06‘08‘10'12ME0106000301_622R02Lord's Brook(Lyman)Oxygen, Dissolved'02-‘08‘10'12ME0106000302_628R02Mousam River atSanfordEscherichia coliTMDL approved byEPA (4A) 9/28/2009'12‘06-'10ME0106000304_625R04Goodall Brook(Sanford)BenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Streams)TMDL approved orestablished by EPA(4A) 9/27/12Approval of Statewide %Impervious Cover TMDL.'12ME0106000304_625R04Goodall Brook(Sanford)HabitatAssessment(Streams)'02-‘08‘10'12ME0106000305_630R01Salmon Falls R Escherichia coliTMDL approved byEPA (4A) 9/28/2009Approval of Statewide BacteriaTMDL‘02-'12ME0106000305_630R01Salmon Falls RAmmonia (Un-ionized)EPA approval of TMDL(Category 4A)11/1/19994-A EPA approved TMDL 11/22/99for BOD, ammonia and phosphorus;5B non-CSO, low priority bacterialisting; 5D fish tissue monitoringshows legacy PCBs and Dioxin‘02-'12ME0106000305_630R01Salmon Falls RNutrient/Eutrophication BiologicalIndicators‘02-'12ME0106000305_630R01Salmon Falls R Oxygen, Dissolved2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality ReportMaine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List200Table 8-10 Status of Listed and Delisted Category5 Lakes and PondsNote that history (2000–2012) is provided for lakesthat have been listed in Category 5 at any time since 2002 per request of EPARegion I staff. Bold font indicates AU/Cause combinations that changed Category during this cycle.LakeTownMIDASAcresHUC10ListCat002ListCat02ListCat04ListCat06ListCat08ListCat10ListCat12CommentsCHRISTINA RESERVOIR FT FAIRFIELD 9525 400 0101000501 (5a) 5a 5a 5a 5a 4a 4a12: Stable, chronic blooming 'wetland';TMDL March 2010LILLY P ROCKPORT 83 29 0105000220 (5a) 5a 5a 4a 4a4a 4a 12: Stable; TMDL Dec. 2005NARROWS P (UPPER) WINTHROP 98 279 0103000311 (3) 5a 5a 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 *12: Originally listed in 1998, TMDL2005. Data indicate stable trendELL (L) P WELLS 119 32 0106000304 (5a) 3 2 2 * 2 *2 * 2 *12: Delisted; no longer supportsrepeated nuisance bloomsARNOLD BROOK L PRESQUE ISLE 409 395 0101000412 (5a)5a 5a 5a 4a 4a 4a 12: Stable; TMDL Feb. 2007DAIGLE P NEW CANADA 1665 36 0101000303 (5a) 5a 5a 4a 4a 4a 4a 12: Stable; TMDL Sept. 2006CROSS L T17 R05 WELS 1674 2515 0101000303 (5a) 5a 5a 4a 4a 4a 4a 12: Stable; TMDL Sept. 2006ECHO L PRESQUE ISLE 1776 90 0101000412 (5a) 5a 5a 5a 4a 4a 2 *12: Improving, occasional bloom ;TMDL Feb. 2007MADAWASKA L T16 R04 WELS 1802 1526 0101000413 (5a)4a 4a 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 *12: Stable, occasional bloom; TMDL2000MONSON P FT FAIRFIELD 1820 160 0101000413 (5a) 5a5a 5a 4a 4a 4a 12: Stable; TMDL Nov. 2006SEBASTICOOK L NEWPORT 2264 4288 0103000308 (5a) 4a4a 4a 4a 4a 4a 12: Slow Improv.; TMDL 2001HERMON P HERMON 2286 461 0102000511 (5a) 5a 5a 5a 5a 5a 212: Stable; Paleo evidence of historicnatural productivity; in equilibrium withadjacent wetlandsHAMMOND P HAMPDEN 2294 83 0102000511 (5a) 5a 5a 5a5a 5a 212: Stable; Paleo evidence of historicnatural productivity; in equilibrium withadjacent wetlands and upstream lakeTOOTHAKER P PHILLIPS 2336 30 0103000305 (3) 5a 5a 4a 4a 4a 4a 12: Stable; TMDL Sept. 2004HIGHLAND L BRIDGTON 3454 1401 0106000101 (5a) 5a 5a2* 2* 2* 2 *12: TMDL Aug 2004; data indicatespersistent stable trendHIGHLAND (DUCK) L FALMOUTH 3734 634 0106000103 (5a) 5a 4a 4a 4a 2 * 2 * 12: TMDL 2003; stable2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality ReportMaine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List201LakeTownMIDASAcresHUC10ListCat002ListCat02ListCat04ListCat06ListCat08ListCat10ListCat12CommentsSABATTUS P GREENE 3796 1962 0104000210 (5a) 5a 5a 4a 4a 4a 4a12: Stable perhaps Improving; TMDLAugust 2004COCHNEWAGON P MONMOUTH 3814 410 0103000311 (2) 2 23 3 3 5a 12: new listingWILSON P WAYNE 3832 582 0103000311 (3) 3 2 5a 4a 4a 4a12: deteriorating trophic trend – alltrophic param.; TMDL Aug. 2007MOUSAM L ACTON 3838 900 0106000302 (5a) 5a 4a 2* 2* 2 * 2 *12: Attainment of monitored usesverified. Data indicate stable trend.UNITY P UNITY 5172 2528 0103000309(5a) 5a 5a 4a 4a 4a 4a 12: Stable; TMDL Sept 2004LOVEJOY P ALBION 5176 324 0103000309(5a) 5a 5a 4a 4a 4a 4a 12: Stable; TMDL 2004COBBOSSEECONTEE L WINTHROP 5236 5543 0103000311(5a) 4a 4a 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 * 12: persistent improvementPLEASANT (MUD) P GARDINER 5254 746 0103000311 (5a)5a 4a 4a 4a 4a 4a12: Stable, blooms persist; TMDLcomplete 2004LONG P BELGRADE 5272 2714 0103000310 (3) 3 3 5a 5a4a 4a12: Deterior. Trophic & DO;Gloeotrichia blooms; trophic param.indicate shift; TMDL April 2008GREAT P BELGRADE 5274 8239 0103000310 (3) 3 3 3 3 5a 5a12: Deterior. Trophic & DO;Gloeotrichia bloomsEAST P SMITHFIELD 5349 1823 0103000310 (5a) 4a 4a4a 4a 4a 4a12: blooms persist; deterioratingtrophic trend continues; TMDL 2001WEBBER P VASSALBORO 5408 1201 0103000312 (5a) 5a 4a4a 4a 4a 4a12: Stable; chronic blooms; TMDL2003THREEMILE P CHINA 5416 1162 0103000312(5a) 5a 4a 4a 4a 4a 4a12: Stable; chronic blooms; TMDL2003THREECORNERED P AUGUSTA 5424 182 0103000312(5a) 5a 4a 3 3 2 * 2 *12: TMDL 2003;Improving; no recentbloomsCHINA L CHINA 5448 3845 0103000309(5a) 4a 4a 4a 4a 4a 4a12: Stable, blooms persist; TMDL2001.DUCKPUDDLE P NOBLEBORO 5702 293 0105000303(5a) 5a 5a 3 3 2 * 2 *12: Stable; TMDL Sept 2005,occasional bloomLONG L BRIDGTON 5780 4867 0106000101(5a) 5a 5a 2 * 2 * 2 * 2 *12: TMDL May 2005; Data indicatestable trend.LITTLECOBBOSSEECONTEE WINTHROP 8065 75 0103000311(5a) 5a 5a 4a 4a 4a 2 *12: Improving; rarely blooms; TMDL2005TRAFTON L LIMESTONE 9779 85 0101000413(5a) 5a 5a 5a 4a 4a 4a 12: Stable; TMDL Oct. 20062012 Maine Integrated Water Quality ReportMaine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List202LakeTownMIDASAcresHUC10ListCat002ListCat02ListCat04ListCat06ListCat08ListCat10ListCat12CommentsTOGUS P AUGUSTA 9931 660 0103000312(5a) 5a 5a 4a 4a 4a 4a 12: Stable; TMDL Sept 2005SEWALL P ARROWSIC 9943 46 0105000307(3) 3 5a 4a 4a 4a 4a 12: Stable; TMDL March 2006ANNABESSACOOK L MONMOUTH 9961 1420 0103000311(5a) 5a 4a 4a 4a 4a 4a12: Improving but blooms persist;TMDL 20041Non TMDL listing changes are summarized in Appendix III, Category Listing Change Summary2In 2000, current Listing Categories had not been established. Equivalent Listing Categories have been assigned for purposes of comparison.* Lakes currently listed in Category 2 do not appear individually in Appendix III but rather are included in the overall lake summary for the HUC.Table 8-11 Status of Delisted Category 5 WetlandsWetlands were listed for the first time in the 2010cycle. As a result, Table 8-11 only contains thelisting history of wetlands that weredelisted from Category 5-A for the 2010 and 2012 cycles. For more detailed comments, consult AppendixIV, Category 4-A and 4-B.Category by Report YearADB Assessment Unit #Water NameCauseDelistingReason / DateComments54A4B32‘10 ‘12ME0106000105_607R11_01_W127Nasons BrookWetland Complex,PortlandBenthic-MacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Wetlands)TMDL approved orestablished by EPA(4A) 9/27/122010: impaired asdetermined by 2005wetland bioassessment.‘10 ‘12ME0106000105_607R11_02_W172Nasons BrookWetland Complex,WestbrookBenthic-MacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Wetlands)TMDL approved orestablished by EPA(4A) 9/27/122010: impaired asdetermined by 2008wetland bioassessment.‘12‘10ME0106000105_609R01_W026Dole Brook wetlandsBenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Wetlands)TMDL approved orestablished by EPA(4A) 9/27/12February 2012: Wetlandbiological monitoringshowed impairment in2000 and 2010.‘10 ‘12ME0106000105_610R01_W023Capisic Pond wetlandBenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Wetlands)TMDL approved orestablished by EPA(4A) 9/27/122012 Maine Integrated Water Quality ReportMaine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List203Category by Report YearADB Assessment Unit #Water NameCauseDelistingReason / DateComments54A4B32‘10 ‘12ME0106000211_616R05_W043Thacher Brook(Biddeford) wetlandBenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Wetlands)TMDL approved orestablished by EPA(4A) 9/27/12’10‘12ME0103000308_325R01_W080East BranchSebasticook RiverWetlandBenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Wetlands)Other point source ornonpoint sourcecontrols are expectedto meet water qualitystandards (Category4B) 3/15/2004Haz waste remediationproject (Superfund). CSOremoval. New wastewaterpermit, removal to landtreatment in 2004.Segment attains aquaticlife criteria (2003 data).Expected to attain by2008.’10‘12ME0103000308_325R01_W080East BranchSebasticook RiverWetlandBenzene’10‘12ME0106000301_622R02_W176Lord's Brook PondwetlandBenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Wetlands)TMDL AlternativeCourt-ordered controls inplace 2/09Table 8-12 Status of Delisted Category 5 Marine/Estuarine WatersA history table similar to tables 8-9 to 8-11 for other waterbody types has not been previously compiled for marine/estuarine waters.In the 2010 reporting cycle, a large number of marine/estuarine waterbodies were delisted from Category 5-A, 5-B-1 or 5-B-2 toCategory 4-A due to EPA approval of a Statewide Bacteria TMDL (9/28/2009). In the 2010 Integrated Report, these waterbodieswere solely listed in Appendix V and a reference tothat location was provided in Table 8-3 (‘2008 Category 5/TMDLEstuarine/Marine Waters not on 2010 Category 5/TMDLList’). These waters, as well as waters previously delisted from Category 5to 4-B, continue to reside in the same category inthe current reporting cycle. Please consult Appendix V, Category 4-A and 4-B, forthe list of those waters.As explained in the section ‘Summary of Statewide Status’ for Estuaries/Coastal Waters (page 94, above), MDEP will developassessment unit (AU) codes similar to what is usedfor freshwaters (i.e. consisting of a HUC identifier and a waterbody-specific code)to be used in the 2014 reporting cycle. Because ofthis upcoming change in reporting, MDEP has elected not to compile a historytable for marine/estuarine waters for the current cycle. In the 2014 cycle, we will present a cross-walk between historic and new AUcodes as well as a listing history for recently delisted waters.2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality ReportMaine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List204TMDLDEVELOPMENTSTATUSTable 8-13 Rivers/Streams TMDL Current Project UpdateAssessment Unit IDAU NameLocation DescriptionCauseProject StatusTMDL SubmittalTarget Date/PriorityME0101000105_103R01Shields Branch of BigBlack RMainstem Oxygen, Dissolved5/29/12: Canadian POTWdischarge2016 / LME0101000412_140R03_02N Br Presque IsleStreamTributary to Presque IsleStreamDDT5-D listed for legacy pollutant-DDT2020 / LME0101000412_140R04Hanson Brook-"Unnamed Stream (P.I.airport)" BioSta 743Tributary to Presque IsleStream, draining the airportPeriphyton (Aufwuchs)IndicatorBioassessments5/29/12: consider for future %impervious cover TMDL,need additional informationon airport runoff2014 / MME0101000412_140R04Hanson Brook-"Unnamed Stream (P.I.airport)" BioSta 743Tributary to Presque IsleStream, draining the airportBenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments2014 / MME0101000412_140R05Kennedy Brook (PresqueIsle)Tributary to Presque IsleStreamPeriphyton (Aufwuchs)IndicatorBioassessments2015ME0101000412_143R01Everett Brook (Ft.Fairfield)Tributary to Aroostook River Oxygen, Dissolved5/23/12: Will be included in aStatewide NPS TMDL whenanalysis is complete.2014 / HME0101000412_143R02 Merrit BrookEntering Aroostook R. fromsouth, downstream ofPresque IsleBenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments5/23/12: Will be included in aStatewide NPS TMDL whenanalysis is complete.2014 / HME0101000412_143R02 Merrit BrookEntering Aroostook R. fromsouth, downstream ofPresque IslePeriphyton (Aufwuchs)IndicatorBioassessments2014 / HME0101000413_146R02 Coloney BrookFort Fairfield, tributary toLimestone StreamBenthic-MacroinvertebrateBioassessments5/23/12: Will be included in aStatewide NPS TMDL whenanalysis is complete.2014 / HME0101000413_146R02 Coloney BrookFort Fairfield, tributary toLimestone StreamPeriphyton (Aufwuchs)IndicatorBioassessments2014 / HME0101000501_149RMinor tributaries toPrestile Stream abovedam in Mars HillDDT5-D listed for legacy pollutant-DDT2020 / L2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality ReportMaine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List205Assessment Unit IDAU NameLocation DescriptionCauseProject StatusTMDL SubmittalTarget Date/PriorityME0101000501_149R01Prestile Stream abovedam in Mars HillIncluding ChristinaReservoirDDT5-D listed for legacy pollutant- DDT2020 / LME0101000501_150RPrestile Str andtributaries entering belowdam in Mars HillDDT 5-D legacy pollutant LME0101000504_152R01_01Meduxnekeag RiverBelow confluence with SBranchDDT Legacy pollution 2020 / LME0102000402_219R01 Piscataquis RMain stem, below DoverFoxcroftOxygen, Dissolved10/19/11 Monitoring for DO in2010 still showingimpairment; probably algaeproblems. Need low flowdata to complete TMDL.HME0102000404_216R01_01W. Br. Pleasant R (KIWTwp)Iron5/29/12: Monitoring indicatespotentially natural condition;consider future delisting.2016 / LME0102000404_216R01_02Blood Bk (KIW Twp)Tributary to West BranchPleasant RiverIron5/29/12: Monitoring indicatespotentially natural condition;consider future delisting.2016 / LME0102000502_231R Penobscot RMain stem, fromCambolasse Str toPiscataquis RPolychlorinatedbiphenylsLegacy pollutant- 5-D 2020 / LME0102000506_222R01 Costigan Brook (Milford) Tributary to Penobscot River Oxygen, Dissolved8/21/12: Low DO probablydue to natural causes(wetlands); mostly forestedwatershed. Collect moredata.2015 / MME0102000506_232R Penobscot RMain stem, from PiscataquisR to Orson IsPolychlorinatedbiphenylsLegacy pollutant- 5-D 2020 / LME0102000509_233R_01 Penobscot RMain stem, from Orson Is toVeazie DamPolychlorinatedbiphenylsCategory 5-D for legacy PCBcontamination2020 / LME0102000510_224R01Burnham Brook(Garland)Tributary to KenduskeagStreamOxygen, Dissolved5/29/12: Will be included in aStatewide NPS TMDL whenanalysis is complete.2014 / HME0102000510_224R03 French Stream (Exeter)Tributary to KenduskeagStreamBenthic-MacroinvertebrateBioassessments5/29/12: Will be included in aStatewide NPS TMDL whenanalysis is complete.2014 / H2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality ReportMaine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List206Assessment Unit IDAU NameLocation DescriptionCauseProject StatusTMDL SubmittalTarget Date/PriorityME0102000510_224R03 French Stream (Exeter)Tributary to KenduskeagStreamPeriphyton (Aufwuchs)IndicatorBioassessments2014 / HME0102000510_224R07 Crooked Brook, CorinthTributary to KenduskeagStreamPeriphyton (Aufwuchs)IndicatorBioassessments8/23/12: Will be included in aStatewide NPS TMDL whenanalysis is complete.2014 / HME0102000513_226R03Penjajawoc Stream(Bangor) Meadow Bk(Bangor)Tributaries to PenobscotRiverBenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments5/31/12: Watershed Plancomplete: implementation isunderway; completed TMDLon hold pending furtherevaluation.2014 / MME0102000513_226R03Penjajawoc Stream(Bangor) Meadow Bk(Bangor)Tributaries to PenobscotRiverHabitat Assessment(Streams)2014 / MME0102000513_226R03Penjajawoc Stream(Bangor) Meadow Bk(Bangor)Tributaries to PenobscotRiverOxygen, Dissolved2014 / MME0102000513_234R02 PenobscotMain stem, Veazie Dam toReeds BkPolychlorinatedbiphenyls5-D-legacy PCBs 2020 / LME0103000305_319R_02 Sandy R,Main stem, segment belowFarmington WWTPBenthic-MacroinvertebrateBioassessments6/11/12: Plan to collectadditional data to furtherassess and determine Plimits.MME0103000305_319R_02 Sandy R,Main stem, segment belowFarmington WWTPOxygen, DissolvedMME0103000306_314R02Cold Stream(Skowhegan)Benthic-MacroinvertebrateBioassessmentsMonitoring in 2006; TMDLnot started2015 / MME0103000306_320R04Mill Stream(Norridgewock)Benthic-MacroinvertebrateBioassessmentsLME0103000306_338R_04 Kennebec R,Main stem, fromCarrabassett R to FairfieldSkowhegan boundaryPolychlorinatedbiphenylsNot started- legacy PCBproblem2020 / LME0103000306_339R_02 Kennebec R,Main stem, from FairfieldSkowhegan boundary toSebasticook RPolychlorinatedbiphenylsNot started- legacy PCBproblem2020 / LME0103000307_330RW Branch ofSebasticook RMain stem, below Rt. 23bridge in HartlandDioxin (including2,3,7,8-TCDD)TMDL not started L2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality ReportMaine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List207Assessment Unit IDAU NameLocation DescriptionCauseProject StatusTMDL SubmittalTarget Date/PriorityME0103000307_330RW Branch ofSebasticook RMain stem, below Rt. 23bridge in HartlandPolychlorinatedbiphenyls10/29/12: No current sourcesof contamination, remainingPCBs are legacy pollutants2020 / LME0103000308_325R01East Branch SebasticookRiver Corundel L toSebasticook LCorinna Superfund siteDioxin (including2,3,7,8-TCDD)5-D listed, legacy pollutantLME0103000308_325R01East Branch SebasticookRiver Corundel L toSebasticook LCorinna Superfund sitePolychlorinatedbiphenyls2020 / LME0103000308_325R02Brackett Brook(Palmyra)Tributary to East BranchSebasticook RiverOxygen, Dissolved5/29/12: Will be included in aStatewide NPS TMDL whenanalysis is complete.2014 / HME0103000308_325R03Mulligan Stream (St.Albans)Below Mulligan StreamDam, to Sebasticook LakeOxygen, Dissolved5/29/12: Will be included in aStatewide NPS TMDL whenanalysis is complete.2014 / HME0103000308_331RE Branch of SebasticookRMain stem, belowSebasticook LakeOxygen, Dissolved6/11/12: Eutrophic lakesource. Total Phosphorusand Chl a levels in the lakehave decreased in the pastdecade.LME0103000308_331RE Branch of SebasticookRMain stem, belowSebasticook LakePhosphorus (Total)LME0103000308_331RE Branch of SebasticookRMain stem, belowSebasticook LakeDioxin (including2,3,7,8-TCDD)5-D listed, legacy pollutantLME0103000308_331RE Branch of SebasticookRMain stem, belowSebasticook LakePolychlorinatedbiphenyls2020 / LME0103000308_332R Sebasticook RMain stem, from E and WBranches to Burnhambridge, including BurnhamimpoundmentDioxin (including2,3,7,8-TCDD)low priority 2011 / LME0103000308_332R Sebasticook RMain stem, from E and WBranches to Burnhambridge, including BurnhamimpoundmentPolychlorinatedbiphenyls5-D, legacy PCBcontamination2020 / LME0103000309_327R01 Mill Stream (Albion)Tributary to FifteenmileStreamOxygen, Dissolved5/29/12: Will be included in aStatewide NPS TMDL whenanalysis is complete.2014 / H2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality ReportMaine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List208Assessment Unit IDAU NameLocation DescriptionCauseProject StatusTMDL SubmittalTarget Date/PriorityME0103000309_332R Sebasticook RiverMain stem, from Burnhambridge to Kennebec R(excluding site of formerHalifax Impd)Dioxin (including2,3,7,8-TCDD)Legacy upstream sources(W.Br. Sebasticook); TMDLnot startedLME0103000309_332R Sebasticook RiverMain stem, from Burnhambridge to Kennebec R(excluding site of formerHalifax Impd)Oxygen, Dissolved10/19/11: Impairment likelydue to Benton impoundment;good candidate formonitoring to confirm orreject continued DOimpairment. No recentmonitoring data.2016 / LME0103000309_332R Sebasticook RiverMain stem, from Burnhambridge to Kennebec R(excluding site of formerHalifax Impd)Polychlorinatedbiphenyls5-D, legacy upstreamsources (W. Br. Sebasticook)2020 / LME0103000309_332R01Sebasticook River (siteof former Halifaximpoundment)Tributary to Kennebec RiverDioxin (including2,3,7,8-TCDD)LME0103000309_332R01Sebasticook River (siteof former Halifaximpoundment)Tributary to Kennebec RiverPolychlorinatedbiphenyls5-D, legacy upstreamsources (W. Br. Sebasticook)2020 / LME0103000311_334R03 Jock Stream (Wales)Tributary toCobbosseeconteeLake/StreamNutrient/Eutrophication Biological Indicators5/29/12: Will be included in aStatewide NPS TMDL whenanalysis is complete.2014 / HME0103000311_334R03 Jock Stream (Wales)Tributary toCobbosseeconteeLake/StreamOxygen, Dissolved2014 / HME0103000311_334R04 Mill Stream (Winthrop)BenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments6/11/12: TMDL monitoring in2005 & 2010, EPAassistance monitoring 2010;biomonitoring in 2004; toxicspill probable source2015 / MME0103000311_334R04 Mill Stream (Winthrop) CauseUnknown2015 / MME0103000311_334R05Cobbossee Stream(Gardiner)Tributary to Kennebec RiverBenthic-MacroinvertebrateBioassessments2015 / M2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality ReportMaine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List209Assessment Unit IDAU NameLocation DescriptionCauseProject StatusTMDL SubmittalTarget Date/PriorityME0103000311_334R05Cobbossee Stream(Gardiner)Tributary to Kennebec RiverPeriphyton(Aufwuchs) IndicatorBioassessments2015 / MME0103000312_333R01_02Bond Brook mainstemFrom confluence of Springand Tanning Brook to tidalinfluencePeriphyton(Aufwuchs) IndicatorBioassessments2015 / MME0103000312_335R03Meadow Brook(Farmingdale)Benthic-MacroinvertebrateBioassessments5/29/12: Probably due toHabitat & Flow2015 / MME0103000312_339R_01 Kennebec R,Main stem, fromSebasticook R to Augusta(Calumet Bridge)Polychlorinatedbiphenylsnot started- legacy PCBcontamination2020 / LME0103000312_340R_01 Kennebec R,Main stem, from Augusta(Calumet Bridge) toMerrymeeting Bay (Chops)Polychlorinatedbiphenylsnot started- legacy PCBcontamination2020 / LME0103000312_427R Merrymeeting Bayincluding tidal portions oftributaries from theAndroscoggin R to TheChopsPolychlorinatedbiphenylsnot started- legacy PCBcontamination; 5-D listed2020 / LME0103000324_333R_02 Spring Brook (Augusta)From Gov Hill fish hatcheryto Mt Vernon Rd, AugustaBenthic-MacroinvertebrateBioassessments10/26/12: Pursue permittingactions to improveconditions.LME0103000324_333R_02 Spring Brook (Augusta)From Gov Hill fish hatcheryto Mt Vernon Rd, AugustaPhosphorus (Total)LME0104000201_421R Androscoggin RMain stem, from Maine-NHborder to Wild RPolychlorinatedbiphenyls5-D, PCB legacy pollutant 2020 / LME0104000202_421R Androscoggin RMain stem, above RumfordPointPolychlorinatedbiphenyls5-D, PCB legacy pollutant 2020 / LME0104000204_421R Androscoggin RMain stem, from Rumford Ptto Virginia BridgePolychlorinatedbiphenyls5-D, PCB legacy pollutant 2020 / LME0104000204_422R Androscoggin RMain stem, from Virginiabridge to Webb RPolychlorinatedbiphenyls5-D, PCB legacy pollutant 2020 / LME0104000205_410R01_02Whitney Brook (Canton)BenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments2015 / MME0104000205_422R Androscoggin RMain stem, Webb R to RileydamPolychlorinatedbiphenyls5-D, PCB legacy pollutant 2020 / L2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality ReportMaine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List210Assessment Unit IDAU NameLocation DescriptionCauseProject StatusTMDL SubmittalTarget Date/PriorityME0104000206_423R Androscoggin RMain stem, from Riley Damto Nezinscot RPolychlorinatedbiphenyls5-D, PCB legacy pollutant 2020 / LME0104000206_423R01 Androscoggin RMain stem, LivermoreimpoundmentPolychlorinatedbiphenyls5-D, PCB legacy pollutant 2020 / LME0104000208_413R01Jepson Brook(Lewiston)Tributary to AndroscogginRiverBenthic-MacroinvertebrateBioassessments6/11/12: Develop TMDL asprecursor to potential UseAttainability Analysis2018ME0104000208_413R01Jepson Brook(Lewiston)Tributary to AndroscogginRiverHabitat Assessment(Streams)2018ME0104000208_413R01Jepson Brook(Lewiston)Tributary to AndroscogginRiverOxygen, Dissolved2018ME0104000208_413R03Stetson Brook(Lewiston)Tributary to AndroscogginRiverOxygen, Dissolved5/29/12: Will be included in aStatewide NPS TMDL whenanalysis is complete.2014 / HME0104000208_413R07 Gully Brook (Auburn) Oxygen,Dissolved5/29/12: Mostly urban:include in future %Impervious Cover TMDL2014 / MME0104000208_424R Androscoggin R,Main stem, from confluenceof Nezinscot R toconfluence with LittleAndroscoggin R, exceptGulf Island PondPolychlorinatedbiphenyls5-D, PCB legacy pollutant 2020 / LME0104000208_424R_01 Androscoggin R, GIPMain stem, upstream of theGulf Island DamPolychlorinatedbiphenyls5-D, PCB legacy pollutant 2020 / LME0104000210_413R02 Penley Brook (Auburn)Tributary to AndroscogginRiverOxygen, Dissolved5/29/12: Will be included in aStatewide NPS TMDL whenanalysis is complete.2014 / HME0104000210_418R01Sabattus River betweenSabattus P andAndroscoggin RFrom Sabattus Pond tolimits of Lisbon urban areaNutrient/Eutrophication Biological Indicators5/1/12: Sabattus Pondeutrophic and source of SODin river; lake TMDL complete2004; slow recovery isexpected.2015 / LME0104000210_418R01Sabattus River betweenSabattus P andAndroscoggin RFrom Sabattus Pond tolimits of Lisbon urban areaOxygen, Dissolved2015 / LME0104000210_418R02No Name Brook(Lewiston)Tributary to Sabattus River Oxygen, Dissolved5/29/12: Will be included in aStatewide NPS TMDL whenanalysis is complete.2014 / H2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality ReportMaine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List211Assessment Unit IDAU NameLocation DescriptionCauseProject StatusTMDL SubmittalTarget Date/PriorityME0104000210_418R03Sabattus River betweenSabattus P andAndroscoggin RFrom limits of Lisbon urbanarea to Androscoggin RBenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments5/1/12: effects from legacypollutants, habitat anddevelopment as well asnutrients/DO onmacroinvertebrates2015 / LME0104000210_418R03Sabattus River betweenSabattus P andAndroscoggin RFrom limits of Lisbon urbanarea to Androscoggin RNutrient/Eutrophication Biological Indicators5/1/12: Sabattus Pondeutrophic and source of SODin river; lake TMDL complete2004; slow recovery isexpected.2015 / LME0104000210_418R03Sabattus River betweenSabattus P andAndroscoggin RFrom limits of Lisbon urbanarea to Androscoggin ROxygen, Dissolved2015 / LME0104000210_419R03Unnamed Stream(Lewiston MunicipalLandfill)Biomon Sta 857 affected byLewiston Municipal Landfillnear Plourde PkyBenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments2015 / MME0104000210_425R_01 Androscoggin R,Main stem, from LAndroscoggin R toPejepscot DamPolychlorinatedbiphenyls5-D, PCB legacy pollutant 2020 / LME0104000210_425R_01_01Androscoggin R,Main stem, from PejepscotDam to Brunswick DamFish-Passage BarrierME0104000210_425R_01_01Androscoggin R,Main stem, from PejepscotDam to Brunswick DamPolychlorinatedbiphenyls5-D, PCB legacy pollutant 2020 / LME0104000210_426R Androscoggin RMain stem, from BrunswickDam to Brunswick-BathboundaryPolychlorinatedbiphenyls5-D, PCB legacy pollutant 2020 / LME0105000209_512R_02 McCoy Brook (Deblois)Tributary to NarraguagusRiverBenthic-MacroinvertebrateBioassessmentsLegacy effect fromabandoned peat mining - lowpH2015 / LME0105000209_512R_02 McCoy Brook (Deblois)Tributary to NarraguagusRiverpH2015 / LME0105000209_512R_03Great Falls Branch,Schoodic Stream(Deblois)Tributary to NarraguagusRiverBenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments2015 / MME0105000218_521R01 Warren Brook (Belfast)Tributary toPassagassawakeag RiverOxygen, Dissolved5/29/12: Will be included in aStatewide NPS TMDL whenanalysis is complete.2014 / H2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality ReportMaine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List212Assessment Unit IDAU NameLocation DescriptionCauseProject StatusTMDL SubmittalTarget Date/PriorityME0105000305_528R02West Branch SheepscotRiverBelow Halls Corner, Rt17/32Escherichia coli8/30/12: Will be included infuture update to statewidebacteria TMDL (approved9/28/09).2014ME0105000305_528R02West Branch SheepscotRiverBelow Halls Corner, Rt17/32Periphyton(Aufwuchs) IndicatorBioassessments8/30/12: Potential naturalimpairment due to low flows2016 / MME0105000305_528R03 Dyer River below Rt 215Tributary to SheepscotRiverOxygen, Dissolved5/29/12: Will be included in aStatewide NPS TMDL whenanalysis is complete.2014 / HME0105000305_528R04 Trout Brook (Alna)Tributary to SheepscotRiverOxygen, Dissolved5/29/12: Will be included in aStatewide NPS TMDL whenanalysis is complete.2014 / HME0105000305_528R05 Meadow Bk (Whitefield)Tributary to West BranchSheepscot RiverOxygen, Dissolved5/29/12: Will be included in aStatewide NPS TMDL whenanalysis is complete.2014 / HME0105000305_528R06 Carlton Bk (Whitefield)Tributary to SheepscotRiverOxygen, Dissolved5/29/12: Will be included in aStatewide NPS TMDL whenanalysis is complete.2014 / HME0105000305_528R07 Choate Bk (Windsor)Tributary to West BranchSheepscot RiverOxygen, Dissolved5/29/12: Will be included in aStatewide NPS TMDL whenanalysis is complete.2014 / HME0105000305_528R08_01Chamberlain Bk(Whitefield)Tributary to SheepscotRiverOxygen, Dissolved5/29/12: Will be included in aStatewide NPS TMDL whenanalysis is complete.2014 / HME0106000102_603R02Chandler River includingEast BranchTributary to Royal River Oxygen, Dissolved5/29/12: Will be included in aStatewide NPS TMDL whenanalysis is complete.2014 / HME0106000102_603R06 Cole Brook (Gray)BenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments2015 / MME0106000103_607R01 Black Brook (Windham)Tributary to PresumpscotRiverEscherichia coli4/13/10: Will be included infuture update to statewidebacteria TMDL (approved9/28/09)20142012 Maine Integrated Water Quality ReportMaine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List213Assessment Unit IDAU NameLocation DescriptionCauseProject StatusTMDL SubmittalTarget Date/PriorityME0106000103_607R01 Black Brook (Windham)Tributary to PresumpscotRiverOxygen, Dissolved5/29/12: Will be included in aStatewide NPS TMDL whenanalysis is complete.2014 / HME0106000103_607R03Colley Wright Brook(Windham)Tributary to PresumpscotRiverOxygen, Dissolved5/29/12: Will be included in aStatewide NPS TMDL whenanalysis is complete.2014 / HME0106000103_607R06Hobbs Brook(Cumberland)Tributary to PiscataquaRiverOxygen, Dissolved5/29/12: Will be included in aStatewide NPS TMDL whenanalysis is complete.2014 / HME0106000103_607R07Inkhorn Brook(Westbrook)Tributary to PresumpscotRiverOxygen, Dissolved5/29/12: Will be included in aStatewide NPS TMDL whenanalysis is complete.2014 / HME0106000103_607R08Mosher Brook(Gorham)Tributary to PresumpscotRiverOxygen, Dissolved5/29/12: Will be included in aStatewide NPS TMDL whenanalysis is complete.2014 / HME0106000103_607R09 Otter Brook (Windham)Tributary to PresumpscotRiverOxygen, Dissolved5/29/12: Will be included in aStatewide NPS TMDL whenanalysis is complete.2014 / HME0106000103_607R10 Thayer BrookGray, tributary to PleasantRiverOxygen, Dissolved5/29/12: Will be included in aStatewide NPS TMDL whenanalysis is complete.2014 / HME0106000103_607R12Pleasant River(Windham)Mainstem of Pleasant Riverfrom Thayer Brook toconfluence withPresumpscot ROxygen, Dissolved5/29/12: Will be included in aStatewide NPS TMDL whenanalysis is complete.2014 / HME0106000105_610R02 Clark Brook (Westbrook) Oxygen, Dissolved 2016 / LME0106000105_610R04Stroudwater River(Portland, Westbrook)Tributary to Fore River andCasco BayOxygen, DissolvedADD: 0/19/11: Candidate formonitoring to re-confirm orrefute dissolved oxygen nonattainment.2016 / LME0106000105_610R07Red Brook(Scarborough, SPortland)Tributary to Long CreekPolychlorinatedbiphenyls10/29/12: No current sourcesof contamination, remainingPCBs are legacy pollutants2020 / LME0106000105_610R08 Fall Bk (Portland)Habitat Assessment(Streams)6/11/12: Develop TMDL asprecursor to potential UseAttainability Analysis2013 / L2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality ReportMaine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List214Assessment Unit IDAU NameLocation DescriptionCauseProject StatusTMDL SubmittalTarget Date/PriorityME0106000106_602R03Concord Gully(Freeport)Tributary to HarraseeketRiverEscherichia coli2/16/12: Will be included infuture update to statewidebacteria TMDL (approved9/28/09).2014ME0106000106_612R01Goosefare Brook aboveI-95Goosefare Brook, Saco Escherichia coli2/16/12: Will be included infuture update to statewidebacteria TMDL (approved9/28/09).2013 / MME0106000106_612R01_01Goosefare Brook belowI-95Saco, Old Orchard Beach Escherichia coli2/16/12: Will be included infuture update to statewidebacteria TMDL (approved9/28/09).2014ME0106000210_615R01 Little Ossippee RSegment from LakeArrowhead (Ledgemere)Dam to Saco RiverBenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments5/31/12: Impairment likelydue to upstreamimpoundment2016 / LME0106000210_615R01 Little Ossippee RSegment from LakeArrowhead (Ledgemere)Dam to Saco RiverOxygen, Dissolved2016 / LME0106000210_615R02 Brown Brook (Limerick)Sokokis Lake to LakeArrowheadBenthic-MacroinvertebrateBioassessments6/11/12: TMDL monitoring in2005 & 2010, EPAassistance monitoring 2010;biomonitoring in 2005 and2010; toxic spill probablesource.2015 / MME0106000210_615R02 Brown Brook (Limerick)Sokokis Lake to LakeArrowheadHabitat Assessment(Streams)2015 / MME0106000211_616RWales Pond Brook(Hollis)Benthic-MacroinvertebrateBioassessments6/21/12: Not started; needsre-sampling2015 / HME0106000301_622R03Duck Brook andtributariesArundel Escherichia coli4/5/12: Will be included infuture update to statewidebacteria TMDL (approved9/28/09).2013 / MME0106000303_624R01Stevens Brook (Wells,Ogunquit)Only portion flowing inwesterly-to-easterlydirection, to start of wetlandsectionBenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments5/29/12: Will be included in aStatewide NPS TMDL whenanalysis is complete.2014 / H2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality ReportMaine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List215Assessment Unit IDAU NameLocation DescriptionCauseProject StatusTMDL SubmittalTarget Date/PriorityME0106000304_625R01 Adams Brook (Berwick)Tributary to Lovers Brookand Great Works RiverBenthic-MacroinvertebrateBioassessments5/29/12: Will be included in aStatewide NPS TMDL whenanalysis is complete.2014 / HME0106000304_625R03 West Brook (N. Berwick)From 0.1 miles aboveBragdon Rd to confluencewith Great Works River1,1-Dichloroethane5/29/12: Remediation oforiginal contaminant sourcehas occurred; attenuation ofcontaminant concentrationexpected over time;monitoring continues.2015ME0106000304_625R03 West Brook (N. Berwick)From 0.1 miles aboveBragdon Rd to confluencewith Great Works River1,2-Dichloroethane2015ME0106000304_625R03 West Brook (N. Berwick)From 0.1 miles aboveBragdon Rd to confluencewith Great Works RiverOxygen, Dissolved5/29/12: Will be included in aStatewide NPS TMDL whenanalysis is complete.2014 / HME0106000305_630R01 Salmon Falls RMain stem, from Route 9 totidewaterDioxin (including2,3,7,8-TCDD)Not started; legacy pollutants2020 / LME0106000305_630R01 Salmon Falls RMain stem, from Route 9 totidewaterPolychlorinatedbiphenyls2020 / LTable 8-14 Lakes/Ponds TMDL Current Project UpdateHUCLakeLakeIDCauseProject StatusPriority *TMDL SubmittalTarget**ME0103000310 Great Pond 5274Total phosphorus;Secchi disk transparencyIncluded in TMDL for downstream lake(Long P, TMDL 2008) thus low priority2 2016ME0103000311 Cochnewagon Pond 3814Total phosphorus;Secchi disk transparencyListed this cycle 1 20162012 Maine Integrated Water Quality ReportMaine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List216Table 8-15 Wetland TMDL Current Project UpdateAssessment Unit IDAU NameLocation DescriptionCauseProject StatusTMDL SubmittalTargetDate/PriorityME0101000501_149R01_W203Prestile Stream wetlandsabove dam in Mars HillIncluding sites W-203 and W-204 DDT 5-D listed forlegacy pollutant L / 2020ME0103000308_325R01_W080East Branch SebasticookRiver WetlandBetween Corundel Pond andSebasticook Lake, wetland site W-080Dioxin (including2,3,7,8-TCDD)5-D listed for legacy pollutant LME0103000308_325R01_W080East Branch SebasticookRiver WetlandBetween Corundel Pond andSebasticook Lake, wetland site W-080Polychlorinatedbiphenyls5-D listed for legacy pollutant L / 2020ME0104000210_418R01_W188Sabattus River Wetland,between Sabattus P andRt 126Wetland site W-188, between SabattusPond and Rt 126 in SabattusBenthicMacroinvertebrateBioassessments5/1/12: Sabattus Pond eutrophicand source of SOD in river; lakeTMDL complete 2004; slowrecovery expected.Updated, revised modelingreport completed 2006L / 2015ME0106000302_628R01_02_W054Unnamed tributarywetland to MousamRiver, SanfordWetland Station W-054Benthic -MacroinvertebrateBioassessments(Wetlands)Not started LTable 8-16 Estuarine/Marine Current TMDL Project UpdateWaterbodyIDSegment DescriptionCauseProject StatusTMDL SubmittalTarget Date/Priority812-2 Piscataqua R. Estuary (Eliot, Kittery)Nutrient/ EutrophicationBiological IndicatorsTMDL dictated by NH licensing and ME nitrogencriteria processes.L812-3Portsmouth Harbor (south and westof Gerrish Island)Cause UnknownTMDL contingent on identification of impairmentcause(s); data collection planned for summer 2014L811-9 Mousam River Estuary (DMR Area 6) Dissolved Oxygen Modeling report complete 2016811-8 Saco R. Estuary Toxicity, Copper Further datacollection required L804-7 Fore R. Estuary Marine life, Toxics Further data collection required M802-25 Royal R. Estuary Dissolved Oxygen Further data collection required 20162012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 217 

# C HAPTER 

# 9 A CCESSING AND 

# M ANAGING 

# D ATA 

# U SED IN 

# M AKING 

# D ECISIONS

ON 

# S TATUS OF 

# W ATERS



# M AINE 

# DEP Q UALITY 

# M ANAGEMENT 

# S YSTEM

Contact: John Silvestri, DEP Quality Assurance Mana ger, Office of the Commissioner

Tel: (207) 287-7830 email: John.Silvestri@maine.gov

Related Website: www.maine.gov/dep/about/planning.html

• Please refer to pages 191-192 the 2006 Integrated Water Quality Monitoring and Assessment Report for complete information and deta ils on this subject. http://www.maine.gov/dep/water/monitoring/305b/2006 /2006_Final_305b_Report.pdf


### Data used in making decisions on the status of Main e waters are collected, analyzed, and evaluated according to the standards contained in the Department's QMP or Quality Management Plan (Revision 4, as approved by EPA-New England, October 2011). The Plan documents DEP’s Quality Management System (QMS) which applies to all program areas and activities in the Maine DE P. The QMS uses a rigorous internal second-party audit approach to managing fo r quality, in addition to programlevel QA/QC activities. The latter are documented i n Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) developed and implemented for each program a rea. SOPs are included in all Quality Assurance Project/Program Plans (QAPPs) app licable to environmental data gathering and analysis. Maine DEP has received dele gated authority from EPA-New England (Memorandum of Understanding 7/24/09) to re view and approve most QAPPs related to environmental data used in making decisi ons on status of waters



# E NVIRONMENTAL AND 

# G EOGRAPHIC 

# A NALYSIS 

# D ATABASE 

# (EGAD)

Contact: Susanne Meidel, DEP BLWQ, Division of Envi ronmental Assessment (DEA) Tel: (207) 441-3612 email: Susanne.K.Meidel@maine.gov

Groundwater Contact: Mark Holden, DEP BLWQ, Divisio n of Environmental Assessment (DEA)

Tel: (207) 215-1691 email: Mark.K.Holden@maine.gov

Related Websites: http://www.maine.gov/dep/maps-data/egad/index.html and http://www.maine.gov/dep/gis/datamaps/index.htm (for access to MDEP data via Google Earth projects on the internet)

The Maine Environmental and Geographic Analysis Dat abase (EGAD) stores site and water quality information in a relational database using Oracle technology and spatial locations using Environmental Systems Research Inst itute (ESRI) Spatial Database Engine (SDE) software. The database includes data from groundwater and surface water samples as well as sediment and biological sa mples and other pertinent information. To date (January 2012), data from the following MDEP programs involved in monitoring activities has been incorpor ated: Environmental Geology, Biological Monitoring, SWAT (Surface Water Ambient Toxics; freshwater and marine), Dioxin Monitoring, Rivers-Stream TMDL, Rivers-Model ing, Rivers-Salmon, and Maine Healthy Beaches; data from the Lakes Assessment pro gram has been partly incorporated

. There are a total of 20,959 sampling sites in the database and a total of 8.1 million samples each of which has one to many r esults records; ~3.1 million of2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 218 

### these samples are used in water quality assessments in general. Approximately 450 groundwater sites and 150 surface water sites are a dded to the database every year.

Data collected by MDEP staff or submitted by contra ctors or laboratories are loaded to EGAD using a standard EDD (Electronic Data Delivera ble) which offers automated quality control. The EGAD system allows complete i ntegration of all data via spatial relationships. Database functionalities exist to as sess trends in water quality information, satisfy requests for data, assist in a nswering inquiries, provide automated analysis, and enable customized reporting and map-m aking. The database allows rapid access to information which is critical for e mergency response for hazardous materials spills. MDEP staff can also geo-locate, browse and access all EGAD data together with related site and monitoring informati on on the Internet via several Google Earth projects. The ability to access a lar ge variety of data quickly, easily and

in a number of different formats allows staff to id entify resources that require protection, such as lakes, streams, or municipal or private wells, and to target monitoring efforts.

Water quality assessment results are stored in Main e’s version of the EPA Assessment Database (ADB) and a link to an ArcMap p roject shows geo-referenced assessment units and the water quality geodatabase. MDEP envisions that all raw water quality data in support of the Integrated Rep ort will ultimately be stored in

EGAD. The GIS-facilitated link to ADB assessments w ill ultimately allow for waterbody assessments via a fully geo-referenced Maine ADB

. Since 2008, Maine water quality data stored in EGAD have been exported to national EPA databases (STORET, PRAWN) via WQX, the Water Qu ality Exchange system; to date data from the SWAT, River-Stream TMDL, and Mai ne Healthy Beaches programs have been transferred to WQX. Like MDEP s taff, the public can also access Maine surface and groundwater data as well a s related site and monitoring information data via Google Earth.



# Water Quality Monitoring and Reporting Utilizing GI S and the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD)

Contacts: Vicki Schmidt, BLWQ GIS Unit

Tel: (207) 485-1482 email: Vicki.l.schmidt@maine.gov

Doug Suitor, BLWQ GIS Unit

Tel: (207) 441-6616 email: douglas.suitor@maine.gov

The MDEP Bureau of Land & Water Quality is highly a ctive in designing, creating, and maintaining hydrologic and terrestrial spatial data for use in water quality decision making programs for the State of Maine. Our primary objective over the last year (2011) has been to establish and maintain The Natio nal Hydrography Dataset (NHD) as Maine’s primary surface water dataset. The MDEP Bureau of Land & Water Quality has a staff person who serves as one of the States two NHD data stewards. Additionally working in conjunction with additional MDEP GIS staff, we are incorporating water quality information into a NHD compatible format. Using the NHD with the NHD compatible data it is possible to stud y relationships between the surface waters and linked datasets. To promote use of the N HD, staff has created on-line

tutorials for internal staff as well as outside use rs of the NHD.2012 Maine Integrated Water Quality Report

Maine DEP 2012 305(b) Report and 303(d) List



### 219 

### The NHD, as well as all supporting spatial data set s regarding water quality, are housed at the Maine Office of GIS (MEGIS) for effic ient on-line access through the MEGIS Internet Data Catalog ( http://megis.maine.gov/catalog ). The MEGIS Internet Data Catalog is provided at no cost and is supporte d by Maine’s Legislative initiative (L.D. 2116 "An Act to Establish the Maine Library o f Geographic Information (Chapter 649). The initiative established data custodians wi thin Departments to organize, catalog, and provide access to public geographic in formation to all levels of government and to the public. The MDEP and BL&WQ ar e responsible for disseminating spatial components of water quality i nformation and analysis activities.

These programs will ensure easy access and retrieva l of water quality information for

MDEP users as well as State and national users of M aine’s GIS water quality

information.



# L ISTINGS ON 

# I NDIVIDUAL 

# W ATERS

See Appendices II through V (separate document) for listing information on specific waters. Appendices include assessments for rivers/s treams, lakes, wetlands and

estuarine waters.